Annual Report, Eighth Edition - Montana Legislature

MONTANAENVIRONMENTALQUALITY COUNCILmktl OOCUMfNTS COOECTtONmay23;jBjA^ONTANA STAre LIBRARr1515 E. 6th AVE.HELENA, MONTANA 5?620ANNUAL REPORTEIGHTH EDITIONANDFINAL STATUS OFNATURAL RESOURCELEGISLATION IN THE48th LEGISLATUREDECEMBER 31 1983

MONTANAENVIRONMENTALQUALITYCOUNCILANNUAL REPORTEIGHTH EDITIONANDFINAL STATUS OFNATURAL RESOURCELEGISLATION IN THE48th LEGISLATUREDECEMBER 31 1983

PREFACEThis is the Eighth Edition of the EnvironmentalQuality Council's Annual Report. The MontanaEnvironmental Policy Act requires the EQC toprepare for the governor, the legislature and thegeneral public a far-ranging yearly report onenvironmental conditions, issues and trends in Montana.This edition returns to a format established in earlyannual reports: general information on a broad rangeof topics, along with a review of environmentallegislation considered by the preceding legislativesession. This is a non-technical presentation of a greatdeal of technical data; of course, it cannot be eithercomprehensive or exhaustive. But we hope that thereviews of each topic will be useful for most generalreaders. For the readers interested in more detailedinformation, we've included a "Resources" sectionafter each topic explaining the written sources used inpreparing this report. These sources, along with extensiveassistance from appropriate state agencies, madethis report possible.There are obvious limitations to an overview reportlike this one. But while we cannot treat any one topicwith the discussion it might deserve, there are severaladvantages to this format. First, we can presentgeneral information in a non-intimidating way toreaders who might hesitate to pick up a 200-pagespecialized technical document. Second, we can widelypubhcize the availability of those in-depth documents,increasing the audience that can use them. And thirdand most important, we can recognize theinterdependence of the vast range of factors thatmake up Montana's environment. As formerRepresentative George Darrow, the first EQC chairman,stated in the First Annual Report: "It is a basicecological insight that all environmental problems areinterwoven, interrelated and interacting. No project,no action by state government has only a single consequence."As the office in Montana state governmentspecifically charged with monitoring all theseinterdependent factors, the Environmental QualityCouncil presents its Eighth Annual Report.

MONTANA ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY COUNCILSENATE MEMBERSMike Halligan, Vice ChairmanDorothy EckJames ShawLarry TvietHOUSE MEMBERSDennis Iverson, ChairmanDave BrownHal HarperEarl LoryPUBLIC MEMBERSTad DaleWarren HardingLeslie PengellyFrank StockGOVERNOR'S REPRESENTATIVEJohn NorthEQC STAFFDeborah Schmidt, Executive DirectorHoward Johnson, Environmental ScientistJohn Carter, Environmental ResearcherHugh Zackheim, Assoc. Resource ScientistEllen Engstedt, Administrative AssistantNina Furlong, SecretaryREPORT STAFFAlan Abramson, EditorCurtis Martin, Research AssistantLuci Brieger, InternCarol Fox, InternJim McNairy, InternEllen Shannon, InternMark Shapley, InternEvelyn Trieman, InternMany people helped us plan, prepare and reviewthis report. While we can't mention each by name,we still want to acknowledge their important contributions.Of special note are Dr. Lauren McKinsey and thestaff of the 49th Parallel Institute, who preparedthe material for the Montana/Canada Relationschapter. Jack Schmidt and Don Snow helped withthe Coal Resources chapter. And the Energy Divisionof the Department of Natural Resources andConservation allowed us to use their map ofEnergy Resources and Facilities in Montana.Finally, Jim Herman, Fran O'Hara and Pam Hyattfrom the Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parkshelped us through the maze of telecommunicatingour text. To all these people, our thanks.

CONTENTSMONTANA ISSUESAir Quality 3Surface Water 16Wilderness 27Forestry 35Mineral Resources 41Coal 50Oil and Gas 58Renewable Energy 61Agriculture 65Noxious Weeds 68Human Environment 71Montana/Federal Relations 80Montana/Canada Relations 88Tourism 104Subdivisions 106Waste Disposal 112EQC ACTIVITIESMEPA 119Hard-rock Mining 121PURPA 122Environment/Economy Forum 123Shotholes 124REGAL 124Groundwater 127NATURAL RESOURCE ISSUESIN THE 48th MONTANALEGISLATURE 131APPENDICESMontana Environmental Policy Act 177Model MEPA Rules 185Documents Submitted Under MEPA 190

MONTANAISSUES

AIR QUALITYEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 3Most areas of Montana have exceptionally cleanair. Poor air quality, however, remains in some ofMontana's communities, particularly in the largercities where industrial, residential and transportationpollution sources are concentrated. In some of theseareas, physiography intensifies air quality problems inthe fall and winter. This report summarizes the presentair quality in Montana and, where possible, identifiestrends.to form airborne sulfuric acid (a fine mist of droplets)and sulfate particles. The sulfuric acid may react withmetal oxides formed in the burning of fossil fuels toproduce metal sulfates. Another common sulfuricemission is hydrogen sulfide (H^S), which primarilyoriginates from sewage treatment, kraft pulp mills, oilwell flares and vents, and oil refineries. In Montana,refineries, power plants, smelters and wood productsindustries produce the bulk of these sulfur compounds.PollutantsSulfur CompoundsWhile sulfur occurs naturally in the environment,human activities have increased atmospheric sulfur byadding sulfur oxides. Sulfur dioxide (SO2), abyproduct of the combustion and smelting processes,is the principal sulfur compound released by theseactivities. It reacts with atmospheric oxygen and waterEffectsSulfur compounds irritate human and animal eyes,nose, throat and lungs. SO2 has been shown to reducethe passage of air through the lungs and studies haveshown a positive link between exposure to sulfur compoundsand the incidence of respiratory problems.Even at low concentrations, hydrogen sulfide smellsunpleasant; higher concentrations can lead to loss ofsense of smell, severe respiratory irritation, and, invery high concentrations, death. Children, the elderly

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 4and people with health problems are especially sensitiveto sulfur pollution.Most observations of the health effects of sulfurcompounds come from episodes of high SO2 at thesame time total suspended particulate levels are high.Normally, the upper respiratory tract absorbs SO2,but particulate matter can carry sulfur compounds tothe innermost recesses of the lungs, thereby causinggreater damage than either would cause alone. Thepollutants act synergistically; their effect together isgreater than the sum of their individual effects.High concentrations of SO2 can cause chlorosis inplants, which is a discoloring of leaf tissue due to aloss of chlorophyll. During acute exposure, leaf tissuemay die. Sternberg (1981) documented significantdecreases in crop yield from SO2 pollution. Becausemany forage plants are sensitive to SO2, livestockgrazing can be adversely affected. The SO: also reactssynergistically with ozone and NO:, damaging plantsat lower concentrations than any of the pollutantswould by itself.Acid mists, or high concentrations of suspendedacidic droplets, can corrode metals and cause extensivedamage to steel rails,buildings and structures.Carbonate building materials, such as marble, concreteand mortar, are particularly susceptible todamage from acid mist. H2S can also tarnish and corrodemetals, particularly silver and copper.pulmonary edema, can result from high NO2 concentrations.Studies have yet to demonstrate direct humanhealth problems caused by hydrocarbons. However,hydrocarbons contribute to photochemical oxidants,which do affect people. The oxidants irritate the eyes,nose and throat, and often the respiratory tract. Manyresearchers believe that high oxidant levels alsodebilitate athletic performance and harm asthmatics.Photochemical oxidants significantly reduce visibility.This can reduce tourism and population growthin certain areas. Ozone damages many materials. Forexample, it attacks organic and synthetic fibers anddeteriorates rubber. Photochemical oxidants are thecountry's most significant plant-damaging pollutant.Carbon MonoxideThe incomplete combustion of organic fuel producescarbon monoxide (CO), a colorless and odorlessgas. The principal sources of CO are motor vehicles,but other sources in Montana include oil refineries,the wood products industry, and wood stoves andfireplaces.Photochemical OxidantsIt takes a complex series of chemical reactionsamong nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and sunlight toproduce photochemical oxidants. These are compoundscapable of oxidizing substances that commonoxygen in the air cannot. The nitrogen oxides usuallyoriginate from the high-temperature combustion offossil fuels, particularly in automobile engines.Hydrocarbons, containing only carbon and hydrogen,also mainly originate in motor vehicles. Smallersources include petroleum refining and transfer operationsand evaporation of industrial solvents used inpainting and dry cleaning.EffectsCarbon monoxide outcompetes oxygen for theblood's hemoglobin. High levels of CO significantlydecrease the flow of oxygen to the areas of the bodythat depend on it most: the heart and the brain. Asthe oxygen concentration carried by the hemoglobindecreases, the heart must work harder to compensate,in turn increasing its need for oxygen. Symptoms ofexcess CO exposure include headaches, dizziness,fatigue, and sluggish reactions; excessive exposure canlead to death. CO may inhibit the bioelectric functionsof the brain, and thus impair intellectual ability.Heart patients, smokers, young and old people, pregnantwomen and persons on medication may be particularlysusceptible to high concentrations of CO.EffectsNitrogen dioxide in high concentrations creates anunpleasant odor and diminishes night vision. A studyof school children living near an explosives plant thatproduced NO2 showed an increase in respiratoryillness and decreased ventilatory function. Lungdamage, including bronchial damage and acuteFluorideFluoride sources include aluminum, glass, brick,phosphate fertilizer and elemental phosphorus plants;

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 5coal-burning industries can also emit fluoride. InMontana there are two major stationary sources offluoride: the ARCO aluminum smelter in ColumbiaFalls and Stauffer Chemical Company's elementalphosphorus plant in Ramsay. The coal-fired powerplants in Colstrip, BilHngs and Sidney and oilrefineries in Billings and Great Falls also release somefluorides.EffectsHigh concentrations of fluoride can harm vegetation,animals and humans. Some researchershypothesize that fluorides are carcinogens and cocarcinogens.Fluoride can reduce the red blood cellcount, thereby decreasing oxygen uptake within thebody. Plants accumulate fluoride. Excessive amountsinhibit the plants' metabolic processes of photosynthesis,growth, and reproduction. Such damageultimately kills the affected tissue. Animals that grazeon vegetation contaminated by fluoride also accumulatethe pollutant in their bones and teeth, causingtooth loss and fluorosis, a crippling bone disease. Thiscan be fatal for such grazing animals as cattle.Therefore, fluoride pollution can cause majoreconomic damage.beryllium, cadmium and lead, are toxic. Second, theaccumulation of non-toxic fine particles can"overload" the lung and interfere with its selfcleaningability. Third, the particulate can enhance theharmful effects of other pollutants. The particles maycarry carcinogenic substances to the lungs. Throughinjury to lung and throat linings, TSP weakens thebody's resistance to infection. In general, high levelsof particulate matter increase new respiratorydisorders, aggravate existing respiratory diseases, andirritate eyes, nasal passages and skin. People sufferingfrom respiratory and heart ailments are extremely susceptibleto elevated particulate concentrations. Currently,the EPA is considering implementing an ambientstandard based on inhalable particulate toreplace the total suspended particulate standard it nowuses.Particulate in the air reduces visibility;large particlesabsorb light and small particles scatter light.Particles can also modify such weather conditions astemperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation andfog. It can help form secondary particles, such as acidsulfates and nitrates, that as acid snow or rain canseriously affect plants, animals and materials. Thecombination of sulfur oxides and particulate mattercauses serious economic loss through soiling anddeteriorating material. In addition, particles containingheavy metals accumulate in plants and animalsand may damage them after extended periods of lowlevelpollution.Suspended ParticulateSuspended particulate matter, or airborne particles,originate from both natural and man-made sources.Natural sources include forest fires and erosion. Manmadesources include industrial processes, unpavedroads, gravel and asphalt batch plants, agriculture,motor vehicles, transportation, incinerators, construction,residential heating devices and refuse-burningoperations. The particulate varies in size, form (solidor liquid) and chemical makeup. Coarse particlesrange between 2.5 micrometers (um) and 15 um indiameter. Fine particles range up to 2.5 um indiameter. Fine particulate remains suspended in theatmosphere for long periods, while coarse particulateusually settles out close to the source.Trace MetalsAirborne trace metals generally result from combustion,smelting, open pit mining and automobiles.Principal stationary sources of trace metals in Montanainclude the ASARCO smelter in East Helena(lead, cadmium and arsenic); the Berkeley open pitmine in Butte (pulverized ore and unconsolidated soilexposed to wind); and coal-fired power plants (lead,arsenic, nickel, copper, zinc, selenium and cadmium).The emissions from coal-burning facilities vary considerablywith the composition of the coal.Automobiles using leaded gasoline are a major nonstationarysource of airborne lead particles.EffectsEffectsThe nose and throat usually trap coarse particles,preventing serious health threats. But fine particulatecan penetrate the deep recesses of the lungs. Fine particulatecan adversely affect health in three ways.First, some airborne particles, such as asbestos.Trace metals present a serious health risk, even insmall concentrations, because many are highly toxic.They can accumulate and cause injury after longexposure to low levels. Lead can cause anemia, kidneymalfunction, brain damage and, ultimately, death.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 6Small children, fetuses and pregnant women are particularlysusceptible to lead poisoning. Arsenic isextremely toxic. Exposure to arsenic dust can causemild bronchitis, nasal irritation, and dermatitis. Butresearchers hypothesize that arsenic can cause cancer,particularly skin cancer, in humans. Exposure to highlevels of cadmium damages the liver, kidney andbones and initiates heart and lung diseases. At highenough levels, any of these trace metals can kill.Trace metals accumulate in plants, animals andsoils. They can damage agricultural crops and otherplants by directly destroying plant tissue. In animals,these toxins concentrate in the lungs when inhaled andin the kidneys and bones when ingested. Poisoning ofgrazing cattle by trace metals can be a severeeconomic burden to ranchers.mvestigation in Montana into the effects of air pollutionon human health. Specific studies included lungfunction testing of school children and persons withrespiratory diseases; screening for carcinogenicsubstances in children's urine in the Butte-Anacondaarea; monitoring hospital admissions during severe airpollution episodes; and, comparing mortality rates toair pollution in Deer Lodge, Lake, and Silver BowCounties during 1970-1975.PAHBoth natural and human processes, such as plantmetabolism and fossil fuel combustion, liberate compoundsknown as polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons(PAH). In Montana, PAH sources includeautomobiles (especially diesel engines), coal-firedpower plants, oil refineries, residential wood-burningdevices and open burning.EffectsThe frequent occurrence of PAH in the environmentand its exceptional potency make it a healthconcern. PAH causes cancer in animals. Mostresearch on the health risks of PAH has concentratedon benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), a strong carcinogen foundin cigarette smoke, soot, wood smoke and coal combustionproducts. The body metabolizes PAH to formother chemicals that can cause cell transformation,mutation, and cytotoxicity.Montana Air Pollution StudyIn response to disturbingly high death rates fromlung and respiratory ailments in several Montanacommunities known to have air pollution problems,the 1977 Montana Legislature appropriated funds forthe Montana Air Pollution Study (MAPS). Completedin 1981, the study represents the most thoroughMeteorologyThe climate and topography of a region significantlyinfluence the effects of air pollutants in aregion. For example, precipitation can cleanse the air;sunshine can help form photochemical smog; andslow mixing, light wind high pressure systems canconfine air pollution to areas for long periods. Oneweather phenomenon, inversion, can place a thermallid over a region and create air stagnation. Normally,the temperature of the air decreases with altitude.During an inversion, an upper layer of lighter,warmer air traps a layer of denser, colder air andprevents vertical mixing. Inversions happen more frequentlyand last longer in valley areas surrounded byhigh mountains. Occasionally, a high pressure systemcauses an inversion over an area for several days.Such extended inversions in areas with intense pollutioncan even cause death.The majority of Montana communities faced withair pollution problems are those in western valleysthat are frequently subject to thermal inversions andair stagnation during the winter months.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 7RegulationsIn response to a growing concern about the effectsof air pollution on human health, natural resourcesand property, the Montana Legislature passed theMontana Clean Air Act in 1967.The act states:"It is hereby declared to be the public policy ofthis state and the purpose of this chapter toachieve and maintain such levels of air quality aswill protect human health and safety and, to thegreatest degree practicable, prevent injury toplant and animal life and property, foster thecomfort and convenience of the people, promotethe economic and social development of thisstate, and facilitate the enjoyment of the naturalattractions of this state." (75-2-102, MCA)Subsequent changes in the Montana Clean Air Acthave paralleled amendments to the Federal Clean AirAct, including important amendments of 1970. Theseestablished ambient air quality standards for fivepollutants: sulfur oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide,hydrocarbons and photochemical oxidants.These standards were designed to limit pollutant levelsto those considered safe for public health and welfare.States were directed to establish implementation plansto bring all areas into compliance with the standards.The EPA was required to set emission standards forvarious industries based on plant technology.Theoretically, these standards would ensure meetingambient standards while taking into account theeconomic effects of the standards. Congress appearedto have decided that some adverse effects on industrywere acceptable in order to meet these goals.In Montana, a seven-member Board of HealthAir Quality StandardsPollutantTotal SuspendedParticulatesMontana Standard75 ug/m' annual average200 ug/m' 24-hr average*Federal Primary Standard75 ug/m' annual geometricmean260 ug/m^ 24-hr average*Federal Secondary Standard60 ug/m^ annual geometricmean150 ug/m' 24-hr average*Sulfur Dioxide0.02 ppm annual average0.10 ppm 24-hr average*0.50 ppm 1-hr average**0.03 ppm annual average0.14 ppm 24-hr average*0.5 ppm 3-hr average*Carbon Monoxide9 ppm 8-hr average*23 ppm hourly average*9 ppm 8-hr average*35 ppm 1-hr average*9 ppm 8-hr average*Nitrogen Dioxide0.05 ppm annual average0.05 ppm annual average0.05 ppm annual averagePhotochemicalOxidants (ozone)0.10 hourly average*0.12 ppm 1-hour average*0.12 ppm 1-hr average*1.5 ug/m' 90-day average .5 ug/m' calendar quarter NoneaverageFoliar Fluoride35 ug/g grazing seasonaverage50 ug/g monthly averageHydrogen Sulfide0.05 ppm hourly average*NoneNoneSettled Particulate(Dustfall)10 gmlm' 30-day averageNoneNoneVisibilityParticulate scattering coefficientof 3 X 10 permeter annual average*'Not to be exceeded more than once per yearNot to be exceeded more than 18 times per yearApplies to PSD Class I areas Source: DHES

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 8administers the provisions of the Montana Clean AirAct. The Air Quality Bureau of the Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences monitors airquality, conducts air quality research, enforces standardsand advises the board. In addition, some of theIndian tribes of Montana have environmental protectionoffices to monitor and regulate air quality ontheir reservations.Located throughout the state,the Air QualityBureau's ambient air monitoring stations provide dataon various pollutants. In problem areas, theycharacteristically record levels higher than state andfederal ambient air quality standards.A 1977 enforcement case revealed that the MontanaAmbient Air Quality Standards that existed then weregoals or guidelines, rather than enforceable standards.This precipitated a lengthy revision process entitledthe Montana Ambient Air Quality Study. The Boardof Health adopted a set of standards for enforcementin 1980. In 1981, the Montana Legislature ordered theboard to substitute a forage standard for fluoride inplace of the board's ambient air standard. The tablebelow contains the current Montana standards andcompares them to the national standards. Primarystandards reflect levels intended to protect publichealth with an adequate margin of safety; secondarystandards reflect levels intended to protect publicwelfare.Once an area meets or exceeds the national standards,the Prevention of Significant Deterioration(PSD) regulations come into effect. The 1977 amendmentsestablished the PSD program to prevent significantdeterioration of air that is cleaner than that requiredby the national ambient air quality standards.The PSD regulations, which limit increases in ambientlevels of SO2 and particulates, apply to new pollutionsources that are constructed in these areas. There arethree PSD categories:Class I: an area where almost any measurable changein air quality is significant. National parks andwildernesses are Class I areas.Class II: an area where air pollution standards willallow for moderate, well-controlled growth.Class III: an area with an existing significant airquality problem equal to about one-half of the airquality standards.Any state or Indian governing body may petition toredesignate its area from Class II to either Class I orIII. The Flathead and Northern Cheyenne IndianReservations have changed from a Class II to a ClassIarea. The Assiniboine and Sioux tribes from theFort Peck Indian Reservation have recently receivedEPA approval for their redesignation request.The table below lists the allowable increments ofpollutants allowed over "existing levels" in each class.Montana PSD Class 1 AreasPSD Allowable Increments (Micrograms/Cubic Meter)1. Glacier National Park2. Cabinet Mountain Wilderness3. Flathead Indian Reservation4. Mission Mountain Wilderness5. Bob Marshall Wilderness6. Lincoln Scapegoat Wilderness7. Selway Bitterroot Wilderness8. Anaconda Pintlar Wilderness9. Gales of the Mountains Wilderness10. Red Rock Lakes National Wildlife Refuge11. Yellowstone National Park12. U L Bend Wilderness Area13. Northern Cheyenne Indian Reservation14. Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge15. Fort Peck Indian Reservation

EQC Eighth Annua/ Report - Page 9In 1978, Montana established its first PSD rules,which were patterned after the federal PSD rules. Incompliance with Alabama Power v. EPA, the EPArewrote its regulations in 1979, which necessitated acorresponding change in Montana's regulations. TheBoard of Health and Environmental Sciences hasamended its PSD rules to minimize the growth of airpollution in clean air areas. The new regulations arecontroversial, especially the definition of "baselinedate", or the time after which the PSD incrementsmust include additional pollution sources. SO2 standardsuse statewide baseline data; particulates use anareawide basis. The proposed rules allow the governordiscretion in excluding from the allowable incrementany increase in concentrations attributable to newsources outside the U. S. This rule may pertain to theCabin Creek coal mining development and the PoplarRiver power plants in Canada which may affect ClassIareas in Montana with SOj emissions.Federal and state statutes have decreased air pollutionin Montana over the past 20 years. Currently,139 of the 140 sources in Montana that emit at least25 tons of pollutants per year comply with the stationarysource emission regulations of the state's airpollution control plan. The one source not already incompliance is on a schedule to meet the standards.However, Montana has serious air pollution problems,with measured levels of several air pollutantshigh enough to harm humans. An individual sourcemay comply with stationary source emission standards,but some areas may still not meet ambientstandards. The more elusive sources of pollution, suchas motor vehicles, residential wood stoves andfireplaces, and dusty roads, prove difficult to controland remain a persistent and often serious problem.percent of the year. In 1977, EPA declared theAnaconda area non-attainment for SO2. In September1980, the Anaconda Company closed its smelter,thereby eliminating the major source of sulfide emissionsin the Deer Lodge Valley. The EPA hasreclassified Anaconda as attainment for SO2.Lung cancer rates nearly twice that of the nationalaverage, as well as high death rates from asthma,chronic bronchitis, emphysema, and cerebrovasculardisease in Deer Lodge, Silver Bow, and Lake countiesprompted an investigation during MAPS. However,the overwhelming influence of tobacco smokingprevented the MAPS researchers from concluding thathigh levels of ambient air pollution were related tohigh death rates.BillingsBillings suffers from high levels of TSP, SO2 andCO. Sources of these pollutants include three oilrefineries, a coal-fired power plant, a sugar beet factory,a sulfur plant, automobiles, road dust andresidential wood-burning. Frequent calm air andsurface-based inversions lead to stagnant air, especiallyin the wintertime. In 1977, the EPA designatedthe Billings area non-attainment for CO and particulates,and the Laurel area for SO2. Ambient SO;levels near Laurel appear to be decreasing. Incooperation with the six S02-emitting industries inBillings, the AQB is now studying ambient sulfurdioxide levels and industrial emissions in order toclassify the area.Particulate levels in the downtown area of Billingscurrently exceed the secondary TSP standards. Thehighest levels of respirable particulate occur in winter.High CO levels remain confined to the downtownarea; they result from heavy traffic. Ambient airsamples collected for the MAPS study showed highlevels of potential carcinogens.ButteSpecial AreasAnacondaHistorically, the Anaconda copper smelter emittedlevels of SO2 exceeding state and federal ambient airquality standards. Stagnant weather conditions intensifiedthe problem, since inversions occurred about 40EPA declared Butte non-attainment for particulatein 1978. TSP sources included an open pit coppermine, a tepee burner, residential heating devices, anasphalt batch plant, unpaved roads and a copper oreconcentrator. The Butte area experiences frequent inversions,especially during the winter months. Studiesindicated that in 1980-1981, ARCO's Berkeley Pitmine contributed between 30 percent and 50 percentof Butte's particulates. However, TSP from othersources, such as unpaved roads and residential solidfuel combustion, is increasing. The highest levels of

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 10respirable particulates occur in late autumn or winter.An analysis of air samples taken in 1980 revealedfairly high levels of heavy metals, probably due tolocal mining activity.As part of MAPS, Butte children participated in amutagen-screening test to detect potential cancercausingsubstances in their urine. MAPS discoveredthat many of the children tested at the MonroeElementary School had significantly elevated levels.Nearly all of those children resided near Front Street,a major east-west thoroughfare running parallel torailroad tracks. Mutagen testing is continuing on thechildren of Butte.Columbia FallsIn the past, fluoride levels in Columbia Falls consistentlyexceeded the state ambient air quality standards.The Anaconda Aluminum Plant is the majorsource of fluoride. The plant currently complies withthe 1981 emission standard of 1.3 grams fluoride perkilogram of aluminum produced. Ambient levels appearto be decreasing each year.In 1977, EPA designated Columbia Falls as nonattainmentfor TSP for violations of state and federalstandards. Sources of particulate include several woodproducts enterprises, asphalt plants, unpaved roads,open burning of wood and the aluminum reductionplant.In the summer of 1982, the state paved NucleusAvenue, the city's main street,Eastern Montanato minimize road dust.ambient air quality standards. However, PSD violationsare expected under certain circumstances.East HelenaMonitoring sites in East Helena have recorded highlevels of lead, particulate and SO2. In 1977, the areabecame non-attainment for the latter two pollutants.However, SO2 levels have decreased considerably since1978, meeting federal and state ambient air qualitystandards during the past two years. The ASARCOlead smelter in East Helena has met the emission standardsfor SO: since 1981.East Helena registers the state's highest ambientlead concentrations, exceeding the federal and stateambient standards. Lead sources include theASARCO lead smelter, ore piles, motor vehicles androad dust contaminated with lead. The AQB completeda one-year study of East Helena pollutants inAugust 1982; it showed lead levels up to three timesthat allowed by federal law at several locationsthroughout the city. The AQB is currently negotiatinga plan with ASARCO to meet the ambient lead standardsby the end of 1984. East Helena's concentrationsof cadmium and arsenic were also the highest inMontana between 1979 and 1981. No standards existfor these metals.TSP sources in East Helena include road dust, orepiles, combustion sources and the ASARCO andAmerican Chemet plants. Standards were exceeded forTSP in 1979 and 1980. The AQB is currently devisinga control strategy for reducing particulate pollution inthis area.Eastern Montana contains vast areas with good airquality, but pollution does exist.Sources includeagriculture, coal mining, coal-fired power plants atColstrip and Sidney, natural gas sweetening plants, oilwell flares and vents, and a sugar beet factory. Bothparticulate and SO2 levels stay generally low and donot approach violations of the standards. EPAdesignated the Colstrip area non-attainment for particulatesin 1977, based on company data documentingviolations near sites of mining activity. TSP fromcoal mining activity has decreased since then, leadingto speculation that the area will become attainment inthe near future.The AQB conducted a special ambient air study ofthe Poplar River area between 1978 and 1982 topredict the impacts of four Canadian 300-MW coalfiredpower plants.Located a few miles north ofScobey, one of the plants began operating in 1980.Emissions from the plant will probably not exceedGreat FallsGreat Falls does not suffer inversion problems,thanks to its air circulation patterns. Air pollutionsources include grain mills, an oil refinery,automobiles and home heating devices. The AnacondaCompany closed its Great Falls copper refinery in1980. The area is non-attainment for TSP (secondarystandard) and CO. High carbon monoxide levelsremain confined to a busy streetwhere in past yearsseveral violations of the eight-hour CO standardoccurred. The Great Falls City-County PlanningBoard plans to reduce CO levels by synchronizingtraffic lights and widening roads. Particulate levels donot show any clear trends. During the MAPS study,respirable particulates measured at Kiwanis Park werethe lowest for a major population center in the state.Of all five communities tested in the MAPS, Great

EQC Eighth Annual Report - PageFalls elementary school children scored best on lungfunction tests.development. A study of the potential effect of CabinCreek coal development in Canada showed that theair above both the North Fork of the Flathead andGlacier National Park would exceed PSD incrementsfor TSP and SO2.MissoulaThe sources of air pollution in Missoula havechanged over the past 20 years, but the problem hasnot. Missoula suffers from high particulate levels. Inthe past two decades, the area's numerous woodproducts industries were the major source of particulateemissions. Now, residential solid fuel deviceshave become the dominant source. These devices contributed50 percent to 75 percent of the respirableparticulate during the 1980-1981 winter season. Othersources of TSP include road dust, open burning ofwood, and the wood product industries. Extremeinversions lasting several days in the fall and winterare common in Missoula.In addition to its particulate problem, Missoula isclassified non-attainment for CO. Carbon monoxidelevels consistently exceed the eight-hour standard atone busy intersection. Wood-burning devices andtransportation are the two major sources of CO inMissoula.Two health studies conducted as part of MAPSdemonstrated the adverse impacts of high TSP levelsin Missoula. As particulate levels increased, children'sscores on lung function tests decreased. And forMissoula adults afflicted with respiratory ailments,lung function decreased with increasing pollutionlevels. Missoula concentrations of potential cancercausingsubstances measured during the winter monthswere the highest in the state.RamsayFluorides and particulates from Stauffer Chemical'selemental phosphorus plant create most of Ramsay'sair pollution. Particulate levels have remained wellbelow the federal standards for the past six years.Fluoride concentrations, however, violated thenexistingstate ambient air quality guidelines at manymonitoring sites during 1976-1980. The AQB currentlysamples grass in the area during grazing season tocheck for violations of the forage standards. Violationsof these standards occurred in 1982; Stauffer hasbegun a program to reduce its fluoride emissions.Northwestern MontanaTSP levels at various sites in northwestern Montanahave consistently exceeded federal and state standards.Particulate sources include numerous wood productsenterprises, asphalt plants, open burning of wood,road dust and residential wood burning. The highestlevels of TSP in the state occur in Libby. The AQBplans to conduct a detailed analysis of the particulateproblem there. The valley topography of northwesternMontana magnifies the problem, as inversions occuroften, especially in winter.In 1977, the EPA initiated the Flathead River BasinEnvironmental Study, a five-year effort to look atimpacts of development on the river basin. Incooperation with EPA, the AQB investigated baselineair quality in the region and projected the impact ofResidentialWood HeatingThere are economic, political and supply-relatedreasons for the recent dramatic increase in the use ofwood for residential heating. Western Montana hasfollowed this national trend. In Missoula, for example,the number of households depending upon woodas their primary heat source increased 611 percent between1976 and 1979. Expected rate increases for electricityand natural gas and a plentiful supply of woodassure this increasing trend in western Montana formany years to come. Since wood is a renewableresource, it can reduce the nation's dependence onexpensive and non-renewable fossil fuels. The propermanagement of forest lands can provide wood forfuel and simultaneously enhance wildlife habitat.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 12Though wood heating can save money, it has itsdrawbacks. Unquestionably, wood-burning devicesbecome fire hazards when installed or operated incorrectly.Improper wood harvest can destroy wildlifehabitat, increase soil erosion and degrade waterquality. But the most significant drawback isairpollution. Wood-burning devices emit significantquantities of carbon monoxide, polycyclic organicmatter and respirable particulates, allof which arepotential health hazards. The pollution emitted variesconsiderably, depending on the type, moisture contentand size of the wood, the combustion conditions, andthe size and shape of the combustion chamber.When compared to conventional heating fuels on aBritish thermal unit (Btu) basis, wood emits far morepollution. For example, a Brookhaven NationalLaboratory study found that a modern wood stoveproduces 500 times more carbon monoxide, twice asmuch particulate, and 750 times more hydrocarbonsthan a comparable oil furnace.Communities in Montana facing air pollutionproblems from increased use of residential woodburningdevices include Missoula, Kalispell, Helena,Butte and, to a lesser extent, Bozeman. All these areasare located in valleys that typically experiencetemperature inversions. Wintertime inversions are ofgreatest concern due to their extended length,associated low wind speeds and increased residentialwood-burning activity.A 1981 survey of residential wood use for heatingestimated that 34 percent of the homes in Helena, 32percent in Bozeman, 27 percent in Great Falls, and 40percent in Kalispell use wood for some or allof theirheating. A 1980 survey showed 54 percent of thehouseholds in Missoula burned wood.Studies in 1980 indicate that residential woodburningdevices in Missoula contributed approximately55 percent of wintertime TSP and 75 percentof wintertime respirable particulate; residential woodburningdevices contributed 40 percent of wintertimeCO emissions, while transportation sources contributed60 percent.The contribution from residential wood-burningdevices of carcinogenic substances in Montana communitieshas yet to be determined. However, theMontana Air Pollution Study showed that winterambient air in Missoula contained mutagenic agents atlevels comparable to industrialized cities in NewJersey and Louisiana. With the exception of Billings,the five towns with the highest mutagen levels werelocated in western Montana. The highest levels ofmutagens occurred in the winter months and thelowest levels in the summer months, as one wouldexpect if the source of these substances was residentialwoodburning. The MAPS data support other studiesthat document emissions of mutagenic substancesfrom residential wood-burning devices at a levelseveral orders of magnitude greater than from conventionalfuel devices.Missoula PlanMissoula's efforts to mitigate the impacts ofresidential wood-burning are being closely monitoredby other communities faced with similar problems.To deal with the acute problem of high particulatelevels, the Missoula City-County Air Pollution ControlBoard Air Quality Unit revised its "Air StagnationPlan" in 1981. The plan sets "alert" and "warning"TSP levels; either requests or requires people tostop using wood-burning devices at the appropriateTSP reading; and advises the public of the healthrisks. The Air Quality Unit initiated a massive publiceducation campaign in Missoula in the fall of 1981.The program included:1) Public service announcements on local TV andradio stations;2) Paid advertisements;3) Several pamphlets outlining the health risks ofwood-burning, correct burning procedures anddetails of the air stagnation plan;4) A "Clean Air Week" that included an informationbooth, a panel discussion and intensepublicity;5) A speaker's bureau to give talks on Missoula'sair pollution problems;6) An air pollution education package for gradesone through eight;7) An air pollution telephone hotline with up-todateinformation on air quality in Montana;and8) Air quality status signs at several busy areas inthe city.New SourcePerformance StandardsThe Air Stagnation Plan represents a temporarymeasure to curb pollution levels; it doesn't reduce theemission potential. The Missoula Air Pollution ControlBoard is now considering the establishment of aNew Source Performance Standard (NSPS) for newpurchases of wood-burning devices. The residentialwood-burning citizen's committee recommended a 20lbs/ton limitation on all residential wood-burningdevices purchased after a certain date. The MissoulaAir Quality Unit recommended a NSPS of 10 lbs/tonapplied only to the installation of residential woodburningdevices in new construction. It believed thecitizen's committee proposal would create significantenforcement problems. Steffel analyzed the two proposalsin 1981, as well as an alternative (a NSPS of 10

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 13lbs/ton to be applied to all wood-burning devicesinstalled after a particular date). Based on theassumptions used in his analysis, only his proposalwould result in a decrease in particulate emissions.But low-emission stoves have not been widely acceptedand they are more expensive than conventionalwood stoves.Given the probable rise in future fossil fuel costs,problems associated with wood burning for residentialheat will intensify. In Missoula, researchers havedocumented some adverse health effects of particulateemissions from residential wood-burning devices.Other potential effects, such as an increase in lungcancer, would not be noticeable for years. As residentialwood-burning devices contribute more pollutantswithin an airshed, industrial growth will be limited.Any one mitigation effort, enacted separately, cannotsolve the intensifying problem of pollution fromwood-burning devices. However, the combined actionof the stagnation plan, massive public education, andnew source performance standards may reduce theproblem significantly. Given citizen cooperation incurtailing the problem, along with technologicalinnovation in low emission devices, perhaps Montanacommunities won't be forced to take more drasticaction to protect their air.Acid PrecipitationAcid precipitation, both snow and rain, is a naturalphenomenon resulting from the reaction of certain airpollutants with atmospheric moisture in the presenceof sunlight. Although contaminants from naturalsources such as volcanic gases and particles havealways caused some acid precipitation, the problemhas become far more extensive because of humanactivities. The burning of fossil fuels for electricpower, smelters and internal combustion engines hasdramatically increased the emission of nitrogen andsulfur oxides - the primary precursors of acidprecipitation.Acid precipitation generally has been associatedwith the industrialized sections of the U. S., butrecent monitoring has shown it is a commonphenomenon in urban areas of the western states.Western acid precipitation tends to be equal proportionsof sulfuric and nitric acids, while higher sulfuricacid levels are characteristic of eastern acid rain.Automobile exhaust, a major source of nitrogenoxides, is thought to contribute significantly to acidprecipitation in the west.Acid precipitation has been partially linked to tallsmoke stacks built in the 1970s to eliminate local airpollution problems. The tallstacks inject thepollutants high into the atmosphere where they remainfor long periods and are transported up to thousandsof miles. What was once a local problem has becomeregional and even global. The time the pollutantsremain in the atmosphere affects the formation ofsulfate and nitrate particulates, which then combinewith water vapor to form the acids.The acidity or alkalinity of precipitation ismeasured in pH units. A pH value of 7.0 indicates aneutral condition, while values greater than 7 arealkaline, and values less than 7 are acid. Under usualconditions, natural precipitation has about a 5.7 pH.Thus acid precipitation is generally defined as onlythat precipitation with lower than a 5.7 pH value.The damaging effects of acid precipitation arelargely dependent on characteristics of the watershed.For example, recently glaciated areas with exposedgranitic bedrock and shallow soils generally have lowcapacity to buffer the acid effects on such factors asthe solubility and mobility of soil nutrients, and thetoxicity of certain substances that affect plants,animals, and microorganisms. Lakes and streams inthese areas are especially vulnerable to pH changesand fish populations are ultimately affected.The effects of acid precipitation on crops andforests are not well understood. Most effects probablyoccur over many years as the watershed's bufferingcapacity diminishes. Long-term, cumulative impactson crops, soils and forests can occur so slowly thatinitial changes can not be detected except throughlong-term monitoring.The northcentral Region of the State AgriculturalExperiment Stations organized the NationalAtmospheric Deposition Program (NADP) in the late1970s to address the effects of atmospheric depositionon agriculture, forest, rangelands and freshwaterstreams and lakes. NADP has established a nationwidenetwork of 60 monitoring stations. TheEnvironmental Protection Agency, the Department ofthe Interior, the Department of Commerce, and otherstate and federal agencies support the NADP programs.NADP sampling stations in Montana are located atGlacier National Park and the town of Poplar on theFort Peck Indian Reservation. There are also NADPstations at Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming,Craters of the Moon National Monument and Coeurd'Alene in Idaho, and Theodore Roosevelt NationalPark in North Dakota.The table below lists the existing pH data forprecipitation in Montana and nearby NADP sites. Thevalues range from 4.2 to 9.0, but no trends can be

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 14Precipitation pH Data for MontanaSite

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 15British Columbia, and the Poplar River Power Plantin Saskatchewan all have the potential to affect acidprecipitation in Montana. The Cabin Creek andPopular River projects are discussed in theCanada/Montana section.The Creston Generating Station, west of Spokane,Washington, will supply 2,280 megawatts of electricityfrom four 570-MW units. The maximum S02 emissionis estimated at 19,970 tons per year, after 86.5percent SO2 removal. The largest pH changes are expectedwithin 10 kilometers of the plant. Modelinghas predicted a 5.5 pH within 100 km downwind ofthe plant. The emissions from the facility are not expectedto impact Montana, but they possibly could.There are no studies that deal with Montana's contributionto the acid precipitation problem in or outsideof Montana. Point sources in Montana emit morethan 80,000 tons of SO2 per year and more than18,000 tons of NOj per year. Major SO; sources arethe oil refineries in the Billings area, the ASARCOlead smelter in East Helena, Colstrip Units 1 and 2,and the Anaconda Aluminum smelter in ColumbiaFalls. Area sources contribute 37,300 tons of NO2 peryear. These sources undoubtedly affect the acidity oflocal precipitation and probably contribute to regionalacid precipitation. The development of coal in easternMontana will also significantly increase Montana'scontribution to acid rain.ResourcesCommission on Natural Resources, Atmosphere-biosphereInteractions: Toward a Better Understanding, NationalAcademy Press, Washington, D.C., 1981.Cooper, J. A. and D.A. Malek, Residential Solid Fuels: EnvironmentalImpacts and Solutions, Oregon GraduateCenter, 1981.Cowling, E.B. and R.A. Linthurst, "The acid precipitationphenomenon and its ecological consequences," Bioscience,31(9): 49-54.Lyn, D., Air Pollution: Threat and Response, Addison-Wesley, Menlo Park, 1976.Montana Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences AirQuality Bureau, Montana Air Quality Data and InformationSummaries, Helena, 1979, 1981 and 1983; Final MontanaAir Pollution Study Report, Helena, 1981.Steffel, "Assessment of the Need for Low-emission PerformanceStandards for Residential Wood-burning Devices inthe Airshed of Missoula, Montana," thesis, 1981.U.S. Soil Conservation Service, "Montana Snowfall pHStudy, Winter 1980-1981," Bozeman, 1981.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 16SURFACE WATERAbundant, clean water is one of Montana's mostvaluable resources. Although this water is not equallydistributed over the state, most areas have adequatesupplies of relatively high quality water. To protectand maintain this resource in the face of multiple andoften conflicting demands is a significant challengeand a responsibility of all Montanans.The primary surface water quality problems inMontana are depletion or dewatering of streams, andnon-point source pollution, or pollution originatingfrom such land uses as agriculture, forestry, miningand construction. Substantial progress has been madein controlling pollutants that originate at pointsources, such as municipal and industrial wastewatereffluents.Point sources may receive end-of-the-pipetreatment to prevent harmful discharges into thewater, but management of non-point sources requiresa modification of land management practices.Non-point SourcesNon-point source pollution arises from improperland management practices enhanced by naturalerosion. Approximately 4,000 miles of streams inMontana are affected by this pollution. Typical problemsassociated with non-point source pollution are:dewatering, sediment and salinity from agriculture;sediment, heavy metals and acid mine drainage frommining; sediment from forest practices; and sedimentfrom natural erosion. Agriculture is the largest causeof non-point source pollution in Montana.Section 208 of the 1972 Federal Water PollutionControl Act requires states to:"(i) Identify, ifappropriate, agriculturally and silviculturally relatednon-point sources of pollution, including runoff frommanure disposal areas, and from land used for

EQC Eighth Annual fleporl - Page 17livestock and crop production and (ii) set forth proceduresand methods including land use requirementsto control, to the extent feasible, such sources." TheWater Quality Bureau of the Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences completed aninventory of non-point source pollution problems in1979. However, federal funds for this "208" programhave been eliminated and the 1983 MontanaLegislature provided only 26 percent of the generalfunds requested for a statewide non-point sourcewater quality management program; hence, efforts toimplement the necessary controls have been substantiallyreduced.MiningMining activities have degraded nearly every majordrainage in western and central Montana, with mostof the problems stemming from early mining activitiesbefore environmental regulations were established.Mining degrades water quality in three principal ways:acid mine drainage; erosion and sedimentation; andheavy metal toxicity.According to Ingman and Bahls, acid mine drainageusually results when: "...previously unexposedmaterial, in the form of mine tailings, comes in contactwith oxygen and water. If metal sulfide compoundssuch as pyrite (FeS) are present, oxidation inthe presence of water converts sulfide to sulfate andreleases acid, ferrous ion and sulfate." Acid minewaters can directly kill aquatic life. Indirectly, acidwater increases the solubility and toxicity of otherchemical constituents in the water. The acid dissolvesores laden with heavy metals that are often (even inminute concentrations) fatal to aquatic life. Acid minedrainage also poses a threat to humans and todomestic water supplies.The most common water quality impact from miningactivity is the sedimentation in streams fromincreased erosion. The principal culprits are minedumps, tailings piles, settling ponds and access roads.Like acid mine drainage, increased sedimentation canharm aquatic resources in many ways. Schmidt (1978)conducted an assessment of water quality impactsfrom mining in the statewide 208 area. He identifiedthe upper Clark Fork, Beaverhead, and upperMissouri river drainages as those most affected bymining in the non-designated 208 areas. The majormmmg water quaiiiy prooiemsBy virtue of sheer numbers, placer mines cause thestate's most critical mineral-related water quality problems.The placer mines cause sediment problems anddestroy riparian habitat. Schmidt (1978) found placermining had its greatest impact in Beaverhead,Madison, Lewis and Clark, Powell, Broadwater,Missoula and Mineral counties. The placer operationsare difficult to monitor for water quality violationsdue to their portability and large numbers. Two recentstate actions are attempts to remedy the water qualityproblems resulting from placer operations: the WQBestablished a general permits program to expedite thepermitting process and encourage compliance withwater quality regulations; and the WQB and Departmentof State Lands agreed to conduct joint field inspections,educate miners concerning water qualitylaws and regulations, and publish a handbook on howto construct proper settling ponds.Sand and gravel operations affect water qualitythrough erosion and sedimentation. Major streamsimpacted by sand and gravel operations include theBitterroot, Clark Fork, Teton and Sun rivers.Abandoned MinesMany of the mining impacts to water quality stemfrom inactive mines. The Department of State Lands'Abandoned Mine Land Program, which is funded bythe U. S. Office of Surface Mining, is currently themain mechanism to reclaim inactive mines thatdegrade water quality. The table below lists the projectson the AML's master Ust considered to becritical water quality problems. Unfortunately, fundingfor reclaiming these projects is uncertain.Key Abandoned MinesSiteAltaBannackColoradoTailingsElkhornCountyJeffersonBeaverheadSilverBeaverhead

EQC Eighth Annual Report - PageForest PracticesSedimentation is the major water quality problemassociated with logging activities.This sedimentationis principally caused by accelerated erosion due toroad construction. Increased sediment in a streamseriously affects fish populations, degrades drinkingwater and impairs recreational activities. Poor forestrypractices can also alter flow regimes and channelmorphology, increase nutrient loads and introducesuch harmful chemicals as pesticides.The 208 report on the assessment of non-pointsource pollution on state and private lands identifiedseveral watersheds adversely impacted by logging.Most severely degraded were the Fisher River, ShieldsRiver, Fish Creek (tributary to the Clark Fork River),Thompson River, Tobacco River, and Smith River.The report also identified areas of potential impact:Blackfoot River, Yellowstone River, Clearwater River,Lolo Creek, middle and upper Clark Fork River,upper Swan River, and the Little Blackfoot.A number of laws, regulations and guidelines coverforestry practices and water quality. Most of thefederal laws deal with flood control, public watersupplies or forestry management. The Department ofState Lands Forestry Division and the Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences are the majorstate agencies responsible for administering state lawsrelevant to water quality and forest land management.At the local level, conservation districts administerregulations and guidelines.The state has little authority for requiring bestmanagement practices on private lands. To mitigateand prevent degradation of water quality fromlogging, the WQB contracted with the Department ofState Lands to conduct an educational program withsmall private owners. The WQB also designated theU. S. Forest Service as the agency responsible formanaging non-point source pollution on lands underits jurisdiction.AgricultureAgriculture comprises about 75 percent of the landuse in Montana and 99 percent of the land use in theeastern plains section of Montana. Water quality problemsassociated with agricultural practices on Montana'sdry, alkaline and erosive lands include streamdewatering, sedimentation from soil erosion, andnatural salinity and nutrient enrichment compoundedby irrigation return flows and saline seep. Ironically,these are also significant problems for the state'sagricultural industry.In 1973, Governor Thomas Judge assessed the problemof saline seep in Montana: "The extent ofsaline-alkali damage and its adverse effect on theeconomy and ecology of this state has created aproblem of near-crisis proportions, and we cannotallow this to continue." Unfortunately, saHne seephas continued to take its toll on the waters, soils andcrops of eastern Montana. The widely accepteddryland farming practice of summer fallowing everyother year is the prime cause of saline seep. The problemarises from "... a permeable soil mantle overimpermeable strata, a highly soluble salt content inunderlying material and a greater supply of moisturethan the soil can store, resulting in excess water beingdischarged into adjacent soil areas or into groundwater."Saline seep typically occurs in, but is notrestricted to, thin glacial tills that are very permeableand laden with natural soluble salts. Glacial tills makeup much of eastern Montana's plains. In the cropfallowsystem, large tracts of land remain unvegetatedfor one or two years. Excess water percolates throughthe soil to impermeable strata and forms a "perched"water table.Salt-laden waters contain high levels of dissolvedsolids, primarily sodium, magnesium, sulfate, calciumand chloride. Saline waters may also contain highconcentrations of nitrates and trace elements,including aluminum, iron, strontium and selenium.Only salt-tolerant plants can grow in saline soils, andvaluable cropland is destroyed. The saline waters alsoenter surface water and groundwater, eventually affectinghumans, livestock, fish and wildlife and irrigatedcrops.Estimates vary for the damage caused by saline seepin Montana. Previous estimates of 140,000 to 200,000acres affected by saline seep are now considered to below. The statewide 208 report on agriculture estimatedthat some 1,400 miles of Montana streams are beingdegraded by saline seep; the affected river basinsinclude the Marias, middle Missouri, lower Missouri,Musselshell, middle Yellowstone, and lowerYellowstone.Researchers have identified many potential solutionsfor saline seep. The Montana Bureau of Mines andGeology recently investigated the use of subsurfacedrains to reclaim areas damaged by saline seep. But itfound the method inefficient for use in tight Montanasoils,as well as potentially damaging to the area'secology. More practical remedies include intensivecropping, the use of deep-rooted plants such as alfalfato absorb excess water, and establishing a sod coverover the affected area with native or range grasses.the long run, such corrective measures are costeffectivefor the farmer who faces deflated landvalues, lost crop income and higher operating costsdue to saline seep.Dewatering by agriculture also causes severe nonpointsource pollution in the state. Irrigation accountsfor 95 percent of the water withdrawn in Montana.County conservation districts have estimated thatIn

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 19more than 800 miles of Montana streams experiencesevere water depletion through irrigation withdrawals.The dewatering reduces the stream's dilution capacity(thus increasing the concentration of pollutants,increasing water temperatures and depleting oxygen inthe water). Fish and aquatic insect communities canbe severely affected.The WQB can apply for instream flow reservationsto protect the areas threatened by dewatering. Itreceived such a reservation for the Yellowstone Riverin 1978.The WQB relies heavily on county soil and waterconservation districts to control pollution fromagriculture. Each district is administered by a boardof five rancher-farmers. The districts promote a nonregulatory,education/incentive approach to solveproblems. In one example of cooperation, a consortiumof 1 1 county conservation districts in northcentralMontana formed the Triangle ConservationDistrict (TCD). The TCD provides technical fieldassistance to landowners to correct and reclaim salineseep areas on a farm-by-farm basis. Best managementpractices are encouraged, but not required. Thedistricts have regulatory power under the NaturalStreambed and Land Preservation Act of 1975 to protectnatural streams and prevent soil erosion andsedimentation. The districts must review for approvalany proposed activity that would alter a perennialstream.Most of the municipal wastewater treatment plants arepresently upgrading their facilities to clean up theireffluents.AmmoniaMunicipal sewage treatment plants usually dischargeeffluents containing ammonia. The toxicity of ammoniadiffers for various aquatic organisms anddepends on the pH, temperature and otherenvironmental factors of the receiving waters. In1980, the WQB identified 36 municipalities andstream segments having potential ammonia problems.But upon further study, the WQB eliminated 30 ofthese segments with six still having potential unresolvedammonia problems. Removing ammonia fromwastewater is expensive, so the environmental benefitsand economic costs of advanced wastewater treatmentneed to be balanced.Ammonia Problem AreasMunicipalityLewistownKalispellRonanHelenaBrowningBillings (Yegan Drain)Receiving WaterBig Spring CreekAshley CreekCrow CreekPrickly Pear CreekDepot Creek-Willow CreekYellowstone RiverCoal MinesPoint SourcesUnder the Montana Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem, the WQB authorizes and controls pointsource discharges to state waters through permits. Theprogram has resulted in significant improvements inwater quality; degradation from point sources hasdecreased from more than 1,000 miles in 1960 tofewer than 100 miles in 1980. However, the permitsissued under the system continue to increase, principallydue to increased energy development. In thepast, the state's water quality program emphasizedpoint source problems; emphasis should now shift toproblems of non-point sources.Through federal grants to fund the construction ofwater treatment facilities, water quality problems arebeing resolved in Plains, Three Forks, Helena,Kalispell, Missoula, Bozeman and other communities.Coal mining has the potential to alter groundwaterflows and change water quality. Mine spoils replacedin mined-out coal beds contain leachable salts andminerals that may increase the dissolved solids ingroundwater and surface waters. Vegetation removalincreases the possibility of erosion and sedimentation.Other associated problems are acid mine drainage andthe dewatering of aquifers. These problems threatenthe other beneficial uses of water for wildlife,humans, aquatic Hfe and Hvestock.Coal mining has affected water quality in Montanastreams through all these avenues. Schmidt (1978)identified the Sand Coulee drainage in CascadeCounty as the most significant water quality problemrelated to coal mining. Nine abandoned minesdischarge acidic waters that affect about 20 miles ofstream. Researchers noted that the Decker Mine hasdewatered aquifers and that groundwater quality hasdeteriorated at both the Decker and Colstrip mines.With the expansion of coal mining in this state, thepotential for associated water quality problems willincrease. The Department of Natural Resources and

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 20Conservation conducted nine studies on the potentialimpact on water quality from increased coal development.At high levels of energy development, levels ofsalt in the Yellowstone and Bighorn river basinswould increase enough to affect plants, animals anduse by man. Any future development on the Tongueand Powder rivers could cause harmful increases insalinity. The Fort Union coal region serves as animportant groundwater reserve for domestic, stockand wildlife use. Coal-fired power plants and coalgasification/liquifaction plants can potentially affectwater even more than can coal mines. Additionaldiversions of waters for these facilities in semi-arideastern Montana can preclude other beneficial uses ofwater because of decreased flows and increased pollution.Planned coal development in Canada has createdconcern over potential impact in the Flathead Riverand Flathead Lake area. Sage Creek Coal Companyplans an open pit mine that will process 2.5 milliontons per year near the North Fork Flathead River.The coal mining could increase sedimentation andnutrient enrichment, and degrade the North Fork aswell as the Flathead River and Flathead Lake.Another concern is the four 300-MW coal-fired powerplants proposed near Coronach, Saskatchewan. Thepossibility of reduced flows and increased totaldissolved solids in the East Poplar River are the majorconcerns. The projects might also introduce toxic andharmful substances into the river. These effectsthreaten, among other things, irrigation and domesticuses, fish populations and crop yields. The U. S.Geological Survey is monitoring the effects of thedevelopment on water quality as the second of thefour units nears completion. The agency has noted areduced flow in the Poplar, but no other water qualitydegradation. (See Canada/Montana RelationsChapter)causing erosion and contamination Of streams; increasedsediment from construction activity; and illegaldumping of brines and waste oil. In the abandonmentand reclamation stages, common waterquality problems include: improperly plugged holesthat can cause the intermixing of aquifer fluids anddischarge into surface waters; and inadequate wellcasings that corrode and allow inter-aquifer transferof water. Gas production can also cause the interaquifertransfer of water, where waters of low qualitymay degrade high quality waters.Researchers are just beginning to document theimpacts of increased oil and gas activity on waterquality in Montana. Preliminary investigations indicatethat the improper handling of produced waterand saline drilling fluids, such as using an inadequatereserve pit lining,present the greatest threat to surfacewater and groundwater quality. Several impacts,mostly localized, have occurred in eastern Montanacounties. The majority of complaints by landownersconcern water quality problems: improper waterdischarges, contamination of water supply or seismicholes improperly plugged or not plugged at all.In addition,Montana has experienced oil spills such as aruptured Conoco pipeline that spilled thousands ofgallons of gasoline into LaValle Creek outside ofMissoula. In the nation's largest land oil spill,pipeline break north of Bryon, Wyoming released oilthat eventually drained into the Yellowtail Reservoir.Both spills occurred in the summer of 1982. Ingeneral, oil and gas activity in mountains such asthose in the Overthrust Belt poses a greater threat towater quality than does activity in the foothills andplains.aOil and GasAll stages of oil and gas development can adverselyaffect water quality. In the exploration stage, vehicleactivity and improper disposal of shothole cuttingscan increase erosion and degrade surface waterquality. Seismic shocks can alter groundwater flowsand quality. In the development and productionstages, when extensive drilling and associated constructionoccurs, potential adverse effects include: oilor toxic fluid spills from pipeline breaks, storagefacilities, tankers and refineries; inadequate hning ofreserve pits and the interception of water brines or oilby drilling; release of drilling fluids from mud pitsRiver BasinsThe following section briefly describes the majorquality problems by river basin as described in the305(b) report by the WQB; 216 areas have been identifiedwith apparent or potential water quality problems.

EQC Eighth Annual Heport - Page 21Montana River BasinsKOOTENAI / srMARY'MILKM"!LOWERMISSOURILOWERCLARKFORKUPPERCLARK FORKMISSOURI-SUN-SMITH® ®L@UPPER MISSOURI®®UPPERYELLOWSTONEMIDDLE MISSOURIMUSSELSHELLMIDDLEYELLOWSTONE@LOWER•YELLOWSTONE®.Source: DHES'^LITTLEfMISSOURlKootenaiThe waters of the Kootenai River Basin are generallyof excellent quality, but they are more sensitiveto acid mine drainage and heavy metal pollution thanare waters elsewhere in Montana. Potential waterquality problems include sediment and metals pollutionfrom copper exploration, mining and milling nearTroy in the Lake Creek drainage and the proposedKootenai Falls hydroelectric facility. Extensive loggingwithin the basin is a source of moderate to severe erosionproblems. Increased sediment and flows fromforest practices and some other sources have causeddegradation of the Fisher River and Keeler Creek inthe Lake Creek drainage.Upper Clark ForkWater quality in the upper Clark Fork River basinvaries from some of the state's worst in Silver BowCreek to the blue ribbon trout waters of Rock Creek.The development of timber and mineral resources inthe mountain ranges of the basin has caused sedimentation,toxic metals and acid mine drainage problems.The 208 mining study showed that the Flint Creekdrainage basin had the most hard-rock operating permitsin the state and the most identified miningrelatedproblems, excluding those associated withplacer mining. Two streams in the drainage, the NorthFork of Douglas Creek and another Douglas Creek inthe Philipsburg area, were identified as severelystressed due to contact with tailings dumps containinghigh metal concentrations. The Flint Creek Range isdefinitely an area of future development ofphosphate, oil and gas reserves. Other areas whereactive and inactive mining and other activities haveimpacted aquatic life and recreation in the upperClark Fork River basin are the Blackfoot River toLincoln, Brock Creek, the Clark Fork River fromWarm Springs to Garrison, Dunkelburg Creek, ElkCreek, Gold Creek, Silver Bow Creek and UnionCreek.One of the state's most severe water quality problemsexists in Silver Bow Creek, which is degraded bythe municipal discharge from the Butte wastewatertreatment plant, industrial discharges, storm drainageand seepage from over 2 million cubic yards of old

EQC Eighth Annua] Report - Page 22mine tailings in the stream's floodplain. The EPA isconsidering Silver Bow Creek as a hazardous wastesite eligible for Superfund clean-up funds.Streams impacted by logging include Fish Creekand the Bitterroot and Blackfoot Rivers.Lower Clark ForkAs with the upper Clark Fork River basin, waterquality in the lower Clark Fork basin varies.Irrigationdiversions and return flows in the concentratedagricultural areas have caused elevated temperaturesand increased suspended solids in some basin streams.Highly erosive glacial soils also contribute to nonpointsource pollution. These factors have resuhed inpoor water quality in Crow Creek, Mission Creek andPost Creek. Dewatering for agricultural use is themost serious adverse impact on the Bitterroot River.The water quality of the Clark Fork below Alberton isgood to excellent.St,MaryThe quality of waters in the basin, 70 percent ofwhich is in Glacier National Park, is generallyexcellent. One principal segment of the basin, theBelly River, is confined entirely to Glacier NationalPark and all water is nearly pristine. Water of the St.Mary's River basin is also of excellent quality, withthe exception of Swiftcurrent Creek, where high levelsof sediment and coliform bacteria from grazing andconstruction have degraded water quality.ment at Kalispell will improve water quality in AshleyCreek. Reservoir releases from the Hungry HorseDam on the Flathead River have created thermal andflow fluctuation problems that impact the fishdownstream. Excessive irrigation combined with othernon-point sources on the Whitefish and Stillwaterriver drainages have significantly degraded thesestreams.The high quality of Flathead Lake is threatened byland use practices and wastewater discharges withinthe basin, since the lake traps nutrients and sedimentsdischarged into it. These nutrients, especiallyphosphorus, contribute to the aging (eutrophication)of Flathead Lake. Because of its unique scenic andrecreational value, special efforts are necessary to protectthis resource.Upper MissouriThe upper Missouri River basin in southwest Montanaand northwest Yellowstone Park is drained byseven major rivers: the Madison, Gallatin, Jefferson,Beaverhead, Red Rock, Big Hole and Boulder rivers.Surface and groundwater quality in the headwaters isgenerally excellent. Within the basin are the mostpopular and productive cold water fisheries inAmerica. But the water quality decreases downstream.Degradation stems from a conglomeration of problemssuch as sediment, temperature, dewatering,nutrients, coliform bacteria, eutrophication and acidmine drainage. Streambed erosion and sedimentdeposition typically degrade water below the basin'snumerous reservoirs.FlatheadGenerally, the Flathead River basin containspristine waters suitable for all beneficial uses followingminimal treatment. Concentrations of suspendedsediment and dissolved chemicals are among thelowest in Montana streams. Some degradation doesoccur from land use, livestock, domestic waste andlarge hydroelectric dams. Foresty and agriculture arethe primary activities that impact water quality.Water quality of the North Fork of the Flatheadcould be degraded significantly from future coal miningin Canada and oil exploration activities south ofthe border. Livestock grazing along Ashley Creek hascaused streambank deterioration, sedimentation andexcessive coliform concentrations, damaging aquaticresources and recreation. Improved wastewater treat-Beaverhead RiverThe major water quality problems in theBeaverhead River are: sediment and metals fromGrasshopper Creek due to grazing and mining;increased sediment below Clark Canyon Dam due tostream erosion; and dewatering from agriculturalactivity. Many areas of the drainage have highlyerosive soils. Schmidt (1978) identified six miningrelatedwater quality problems and two drainagesadversely affected by placer mining in the basin.There is a strong potential for future mining developmentin the basin.Ruby RiverThe Ruby River suffers from high turbidity levelsdue to easily erodible soils and poor land managementpractices, such as overgrazing.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 23Big Hole RiverThe water of the Big Hole River, a valuable blueribbon fishery, is generally of excellent quality.However, increased temperature and sediment loadsdue to irrigation withdrawals and returns havedamaged some stream sections of the drainage andhave the potential for serious degradation of thefishery.sediment, nutrients and coliform bacteria in the EastGallatin River. However, the new wastewater treatmentplant at Bozeman has abolished toxic ammoniaproblems in the river. The West Gallatin River is alsodegraded by sediment, mainly due to erodible streambanks,grazing and agricultural activity, although notto the extent of the East Gallatin.Jefferson RiverElevated temperatures that could damage salmonidsand associated aquatic life have been recorded on theJefferson, caused primarily by agricultural activity.Moderate sediment and turbidity levels occur in theJefferson from irrigation return flows and natural andchannel erosion.Boulder RiverAcid mine drainage has severely degraded thewaters in the Boulder River drainage. The degradationresults mainly from acid, metals, and sediments fromHigh Ore and Cataract creeks, areas of intense pastmining. Pederson (1977) assessed the mining impactsof water quality in the Northern Boulder Batholithand discovered that 56 of the 66 stream sampling stationshad recorded metal concentrations exceedingthose known to cause an impact to aquatic organisms.Red Rock RiverSeveral soil groups are highly erodible in the RedRock River drainage, which cause sediment pollutionaggravated by overgrazing and forestry activity.Missouri-Sun-SmithWater quality in the Missouri-Sun-Smith Riverbasin varies considerably, from the best in the state tothe worst. Several industrial and municipal sourcesdischarge into the basin's waters. The basin also has17 reservoirs and run-of-the-river impoundments, eachwith at least 1,000 acre- feet of storage. Two severewater quality problems occur on Muddy Creek andPrickly Pear Creek.Dearborn RiverSome sections of the Dearborn River are degradedfrom high levels of sediments due to agriculturalactivity.Smith RiverThe waters of the Smith River are generally of highquality, although high sediment levels and increasedtemperatures due to poor land use practices (loggingand agriculture) occur in sections of the river.Madison RiverSediment in the West Fork of the Madison River,due to poor land use practices, is one water qualityproblem on the Madison, a nationally prominent blueribbon trout stream. But the most serious problem iselevated temperatures considered harmful tosalmonids and associated aquatic life below EnnisLake, due to solar heating of the relatively shallowlake waters. One fish kill occurred below Ennis Lakein 1979. The Blue Ribbon 208 group is now conductinga detailed investigation of the problem.Gallatin RiverThe Gallatin River has pristine headwaters but concentrationsof solids and nutrients increasedownstream. Waters of the West Gallatin River aregenerally high quality, while waters of the EastGallatin have been degraded. Erodible streambanks,extensive agricultural activity, waste disposal anddischarges from the Bozeman sewage treatment plantrepresent the major factors contributing to increasedSun RiverMuddy Creek, a tributary of the Sun River,deposits a tremendous sediment load—200,000 tons oferoded soil per year—into the river. Unstable soilscombined with high flows caused by excess irrigationwater being returned to Muddy Creek are the majorfactors leading to this load. This creates Montana'sworst water quality problem. The Soil ConservationService (SCS) has initiated programs to correct theproblem by promoting water conservation practicesand the rerouting of water to reduce the flows intoMuddy Creek. Since these efforts began three yearsago, researchers have noted decreased flows, butmuch more work needs to be done and funding iscrucial. The Bureau of Reclamation has been investigatingconstructing a $19 million dam at Power(subject to Congressional approval) to collect silt andstabilize flows.Prickly Pear CreekPrickly Pear Creek has suffered many abuses in thepast from intensive mining, dewatering for irrigation,

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 24industrial and municipal discharges, and channelizationfrom construction of highways and railroads. TheSpring Creek drainage, dubbed "The Black Sheep ofthe Headwaters Family," remains a significant sourceof acid, heavy metals and sediment in the PricklyPear. These pollutants from the oxidized tailings ofmines abandoned almost 100 years ago continue toaffect aquatic life downstream. The debilitating effectof discharges from the ASARCO Smelter has beengreatly reduced in the past ten years, due to the introductionof a closed circuit system in 1975, and theoperation of the smelter's dam to allow fish passage.Secondary wastewater treatment facilities in EastHelena will significantly improve thfe quality of EastHelena's sewage effluent. The Helena sewage treatmentplant continues to damage the water quality ofthe creek, causing high levels of fecal coliform,bacteria, nutrients, turbidity and ammonia. TheDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks is working tosolve the several dewatering problems in lower PricklyPear Creek.Belt CreekAcid mine drainage from inactive mines severelydegrades Carpenter Creek and the Dry Fork of BeltCreek. Seeps from nine inactive coal mines in theSand Coulee Drainage near Belt cause acid waters thataffect about 20 miles of stream. The Department ofState Lands is attempting to reclaim the mines.MariasThe water quality of the Marias and Teton riversworsens as they flow eastward, due to increasinglevels of sediments and salts. Water in the Dry Forkof the Marias is of poor quality due to high salt andsediment levels from natural sources and agriculturalactivity. Nearly all identified water quality problemson the Marias stem from irrigated agricultural operations.High nutrient and ammonia levels below theBrowning wastewater treatment plant degrade thewaters of Willow Creek. Petroleum activity is thelikely source of phenols and sediment impacting theSpring Coulee tributary of the Marias. The TetonRiver is significantly degraded by the time it reachesthe town of Collins, due to a combination of irrigationwithdrawals and return flows, stream channelization,and geological effects as the water crosses theColorado shale formation.Middle MissouriThe middle Missouri River basin includes the areadrained by the Missouri River from Fort Benton tothe Fort Peck Dam. The high level of petroleumactivity occurring in the basin has had little impact onwater quality. The large deposits of coal in thesouthern and eastern parts of the basin might be afuture water quality concern. Sediments and saltsfrom irrigation returns, poor soil conservation practices,saline seep, overgrazing and natural erosion arethe dominant water quality problems in the basin.Arrow Creek carries heavy silt loads from naturaland agricultural sources. Combined with high salinitylevels, these inhibit aquatic life. High nutrient andammonia levels caused by effluent from theLewistown wastewater treatment plant damage aquaticresources and recreation in the Big Spring Creek andJudith River. Suspended solids and salts are high nearthe mouth of the Judith River, probably as a result ofagriculture and natural sources. Sediment loads andsalinity are also significant problems on the WolfCreek tributary of the Judith River.MusselshellThe quality of water in the Musselshell River isdegraded primarily from natural causes, but also fromlogging, agriculture and past channelization. Somesaline seeps occur as well.Logging in the upper portion of the basin hascaused increased sediment in various drainages,possibly damaging aquatic life. The Winnettwastewater treatment plant, combined with naturalsources and agricultural activity, causes nutrient,ammonia and sediment problems on McDonald Creekand Box Elder Creek. The lower Musselshell carriesexcessive sediment, mainly due to Box Elder geologyand topography and irrigation returns. Fisheries production,recreation, domestic water use, irrigation andreservoir storage are all affected by increased sedimentloads.MilkIncreased sediment and salt primarily caused bypoor grazing and cropping practices, irrigation returnsand saline seep significantly degrade the waters of theMilk River Basin. More than 12 municipal, severalindustrial and numerous agricultural sources dischargewastes into the basin's waters. The headwaters of theMilk in Glacier National Park are of excellent quality.Once the river reenters the U. S., the water qualitydeteriorates with increased sediments and salts.Streambank erosion and irrigation returns are themajor contributors to this degradation. Leachatesfrom past mining activity in the Little Rockies cause aheavy metal and pH problem in Peoples Creek. Highsediment and salt levels remain the major water

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 25quality problems on the lower reaches of the MilkRiver.Lower MissouriThe lower Missouri River basin runs from the FortPeck Reservoir to the Montana-North Dakota border.The basin waters are generally of only fair quality,being high in sodium and sulfates. It provides warmwater habitat for aquatic life. Saline seep is rated asthe most serious non-point source pollution problem,with poor quality irrigation flows rated second. Thewater of the Poplar River, particularly the East Fork,generally is of poor quality and sometimes isunsuitable for irrigation during summer months.Water of Big Muddy Creek and the Redwater River isof poor quality with high levels of total dissolvedsolids due to agricultural and natural sources. Aquaticresources, irrigation and recreation uses are impaired.The area contains vast deposits of coal and reserves ofpetroleum in its southern portion, and therefore mightexperience future impacts.Upper YellowstoneThe upper Yellowstone River basin includes theYellowstone River and all of its tributaries from thenational park boundary to just below the Clarks Forkof the Yellowstone. Waters of the headwaters are ofexcellent quality (blue-ribbon trout waters), except forcertain tributaries affected by acid mine drainage.However, as the waters flow eastward temperature,dissolved solids and suspended solids increase. TheClarks Fork of the Yellowstone is of poor to fairquality due to high turbidity and sediment loads. Themajor sources of these pollutants include natural erosionand poor land use practices. Elevated arsenic,fluoride and phosphorus levels, introduced by thethermal waters of Yellowstone National Park, occurin the upper Yellowstone. Much of the drainage containshighly unstable soils with high erosion potential.Waters of the Stillwater River drainage are generallyof good to excellent quality, except where pastmining operations have caused acid mine drainage andheavy metal pollution in the headwaters. TheMcLaren Mine poses a historic problem where heavymetals and acidity have rendered Daisy Creek void offish life for some distance downstream.Sediment from irrigation activities increases loads tothe Yellowstone as it flows eastward. The forestry 208study also found logging activities cause increasedrunoff and sediment loads in several drainages of thebasin.Middle YellowstoneThe quality of water in the Middle YellowstoneRiver Basin declines as stream temperatures andsuspended sediment loads increase. There is potentialfor increased degradation due to coal mining andother energy developments within the drainage.Lower YellowstoneThe WQB describes water quality of the lowerYellowstone River basin in the following way: "Withthe exception of the Yellowstone River and one ortwo others, streams in the basin have naturally poorquality water because of high sediment loads andlarge concentrations of salts. One stream, the PowderRiver, has been described as 'a mile wide and an inchdeep, too thick to drink and too thin to plow.' Soilgroups in the basin have erosion potentials rangingfrom slight to severe."The Powder River has elevated sediment and salinitydue to natural erosion and agricultural activities.Waters of the Little Powder and the Powder riverbasins and Sunday Creek are of poor quality.Downstream from the Powder River, salinity andsediment levels increase due to saline seep, poorquality tributaries and irrigation.Excessive sediment loading and high concentrationsof salts have degraded streams in this basin. Naturallyerodible soils, combined with agricultural activity,have created poor water quality in the Powder Riverand Little Powder River basins and Sunday Creek.Little MissouriEighty percent of the land in this basin is grazingland. Water quality throughout the basin ranges fromfair to poor. There is a heavy reliance on groundwaterfor stock and domestic supplies. Sediment fromnatural, agricultural and mining sources in tributariesdegrade waters of the Little Missouri. High coliformbacteria levels are probably due to on-site wastedisposal along Box Elder Creek and the LittleMissouri River below Alzada. The Wibaux wastewatertreatment plant and on-site waste disposal degradewaters on Beaver Creek.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page .NondegradationRulesThe Montana Water Pollution Control Actestablished a nondegradation policy that requires:"That any state waters whose existing quality ishigher than the established water quality standardsbe maintained at that high quality unless ithas been affirmatively demonstrated to theBoard that a change is justifiable as a result ofnecessary economic or social development andwill not preclude present and anticipated uses ofthose waters."The Board of Health and Environmental Scienceshas approved regulations proposed by the WQB toimplement this nondegradation policy. The procedureswhereby a discharger can degrade Montana watersbecause of economically or socially necessary developmentremains a controversial issue.Public Water SuppliesMontana has 1,896 public water supplies, 594 ofwhich are community systems. Montana's drinkingwater is generally good in the west, and fair to poorin the east; the eastern groundwater supplies aregenerally high in total dissolved solids.Groundwater systems comprise 95 percent of thestate's public water supplies, but serve only 30 percentof the population. In 1982, the WQB identified 18community groundwater systems that exceeded themaximum levels for fluoride; five for nitrates; two forarsenic; and two for selenium. Eastern Montanasources suffer from problems associated with dissolvedsolids, iron, manganese, hydrogen sulfide gas,sulfate and sodium.Surface water systems comprise only 5 percent ofthe state's public water supplies but serve 70 percentof its population. Many of these systems provide onlychlorination treatment and many of these samesystems have experienced excesses of the maximumcontaminant level for turbidity. Those communitypublic water supplies that have exceeded the turbiditystandard are Culbertson, Bozeman, Canyon Ferry,Devon, Tiber County Water District, Fort Peck, RainbowDam, Ryan Dam, Harlem, Helena, Neihart,Ronan and White Sulphur Springs. Algae bloomshave also created taste, odor or color problems insome surface water supplies, such as at Helena andButte.LakesPristine, high quality lakes abound in Montana.However, many Montana lakes have significant waterquality problems. Unlike flowing rivers and streams,lakes do not have purging capacity for pollutants;they serve as a repository for innumerable natural andman-made pollutants. Generally, natural and nonpointsource pollutants, not point sources, degradeMontana's lakes.The WQB is now completing a statewide inventoryof water quality in Montana lakes. Previously, nosystematic state program existed to assess the waterquality of Montana lakes. In its 1982 305(b) report,the WQB identified 20 lakes where beneficial useshave been most significantly impaired by water qualityproblems. Many of these lakes have eutrophicationproblems— the accumulation of sediment on the lakebottom reducing lake depth and volume and highnutrient levels enhancing aquatic plant growth. Thisleads to nuisance algae blooms, seasonal oxygendepletion, stagnation and fish kills that damage therecreational and aesthetic aspects of the lake. Culturaleutrophication, the input of nutrients and sedimentsdue to human activities, speeds up the naturaleutrophication process. Ironically, eutrophicGeorgetown Lake serves as one of the state's mostpopular and productive fisheries. Eutrophication, atvarious stages of development, threatens FlatheadLake. Methods of preventing nutrients from enteringthe lakes, such as better soil conservation practicesand advanced water treatment, offer solutions toeutrophication problems.ResourcesMontana Dept. of Health and Environmental Quality,Water Quality Bureau, Montana Water Quality 1982.Helena, 1983; issue assessments of 208 planning reports,various dates.Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and ConservationWater Resources Division, Water Use in Montana, Helena,1975.Montana Dept. of State Lands, Montana's AbandonedMine Land Reclamation Program, Helena, 1982.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Final EIS: Impactof Canadian Power Plant and Flow Apportionment on thePoplar River Ba.sin. Washington, D.C., 1981.

WILDERNESSEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 27United States wilderness policy has been one ofstrict protection and preservation. The Wilderness Actof 1964 states: "It is the policy of the Congress tosecure for the American people of present and futuregenerations the benefits of an enduring resource ofwilderness."Although the federal government is largelyresponsible for establishing and managing wildernessin Montana, state legislators, citizens and interestedgroups are keenly involved in wilderness issues.Wilderness represents a key component of Montana'senvironment.Major LegislationThree pieces of federal legislation provide theframework for the National Wilderness PreservationSystem. These are the Wilderness Act of 1964, theFederal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968.The Wilderness Act of 1964 (PL 88-577) establishedthe National Wilderness Preservation System. Untilthat time, all wilderness and primitive areas had beenlocated on Forest Service lands. All areas that hadbeen classified as "wilderness," "wild" or "canoe"became wilderness areas. Within ten years all areasthat had been classified as "primitive" had to beevaluated as potential wilderness. The act alsodirected the secretary of the interior to review thewilderness potential of all roadless areas of at least5,000 acres in the national parks, monuments, wildliferefuges and game ranges. The act required thepresident to make a recommendation to Congress oneach area; Congress retained sole authority todesignate a wilderness area.The Wilderness Act prohibited new road buildingand commercial enterprises in wilderness areas. Theintroduction of motorized equipment and vehicles wasalso prohibited, with the exception of those used priorto passage of the act. Mineral exploration anddevelopment were allowed, subject to regulation,through December 31, 1983, when all unclaimed andunleased minerals in wilderness areas were withdrawnfrom development. Livestock grazing, if established

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 28before the act, may also continue. In 1976, Montanahad seven wilderness areas: the Bob Marshall,Scapegoat, Selway-Bitterroot, Anaconda-Pintler,Cabinet Mountains, Mission Mountains, and Gates ofthe Mountains.The Federal Land Policy and Management Act(FLPMA) of 1976 (PL 94-579) directed the Bureau ofLand Management to manage its public lands formultiple use. The act directed the BLM to inventoryall its lands, while section 603 specifically required thereview of all roadless areas of 5,000 acres or moreand roadless islands identified as having wildernesscharacteristics. The BLM would then recommend tothe president areas suitable for wilderness. During thereview, the Interior Department and the BLM mustmanage the areas so as not to impair their wildernesscharacteristics. However, mining, grazing and mineralleasing are allowed to continue without specialregulation if the activity began before presidentialapproval of FLPMA.The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (PL90-542) established a system to preserve free-flowingrivers or valuable segments of rivers. These riverspossess outstanding scenic, recreational, geologic, fishand wildlife, cultural or similar values. Riversincluded in the system are classified as "wild,""scenic," "recreational" or any combination of thethree. Wild rivers are unpolluted and undammed,have primitive surroundings, and are accessible onlyby trail. Scenic rivers are undammed, have largelyundeveloped shorelines, but are accessible by road.Recreational rivers are readily accessible by road orrailroad, may have some development along theirshorelines and may have undergone someimpoundment or diversion.The act gives the federal agency in charge of theriver the authority to acquire, through condemnation,not more than 100 acres of river frontage per mile.Such condemnation is prohibited if more than 50percent of the land along the river is already infederal or state ownership, or if the land is within theincorporated limits of a city or town. The managingagency is also allowed to purchase scenic easements tocontrol land use along the river.The 1968 act designated the first eight componentsof the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Twenty-sevenrivers or sections of rivers were designated as potentialadditions to the system, including in Montana theNorth, Middle, and South Forks of the FlatheadRiver and the Missouri River.The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission cannotlicense any new project directly affecting a componentof the Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Land withinone-quarter mile of the bank of any designated rivermay not be withdrawn from entry or sold. Federallyowned minerals not already claimed or leased arewithdrawn from appropriation.Designations Since 1975In 1976, the Montana Wilderness Study Act(MWSA) directed the U. S. Forest Service to studythe wilderness potential of nine Montana areas. TheForest Service also evaluated all its identified roadlessareas in its second Roadless Area Review andEvaluation (RARE II) and recommended areas forexclusion, for further planning, or for inclusion aswilderness. The Forest Service is makingrecommendations for the MWSA areas and otherareas identified in each forest management plan. TheBureau of Land Management conducted its wildernessinventory and designated Wilderness Study Areas(WSA). The BLM will make recommendations onthose areas after its studies are completed.Eight new Montana wilderness areas have beenadded to the National Wilderness Preservation Systemsince 1976. The Omnibus Forest and RefugeWilderness Act (PL 94-557) established three: the RedRocks Lakes, Medicine Lake and UL Bend NationalWildlife Refuge Wildernesses. The other five areas arediscussed below:Welcome CreekWelcome Creek became a wilderness area when theEndangered American Wilderness Act was signed in1977. The area was initially included in the bill, butwas dropped in June 1977. The House Interior andInsular Affairs Committee returned Welcome Creekto the bill with the stipulation that it become instantwilderness if the bill became law.Absaroka-BeartoothIn 1978, the 920,000-acre Absaroka-BeartoothWilderness combined the Absaroka and BeartoothPrimitive Areas with roadless areas identified by theForest Service to create a unified wilderness area.Wilderness designation precluded proposals forlogging in the Cedar-Bassett area near Gardiner and aroad from Big Timber to Cooke City. The proposedStillwater platinum-paladium mining area, locatednear the northeast boundary, was excluded from thewilderness because of its rich concentration ofstrategic minerals.Great BearThe 293,000-acre Great Bear Wilderness, whichjoins Glacier National Park with the Bob MarshallWilderness, was approved in late 1978.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 29Senator Lee Metcalf firstthe Great Bear inintroduced legislation for1975. The area was included as astudy area in the 1976 Omnibus Wilderness Act, butby the time the Forest Service had concluded its studyin 1976 there was opposition from timber, mining,and oil interests to wilderness designation. Reports in1977 from the U.S. Geological Survey and the Bureauof Mines indicated good oil and gas potential in theeastern part of the proposed wilderness. Oil and gasinterests were concerned that wilderness designationwould prevent oil and gas exploration.Members of the Montana congressional delegationdid not sponsor the Great Bear Wilderness legislation.Instead, Senators Henry Jackson (D-Washington) andClifford Hansen ( R-Wyoming) and RepresentativeMorris Udall (D-Arizona) introduced the bill "byrequest." The House and Senate deleted 13,300 acresfrom the area to allow for snowmobile use areas, apowerline corridor along U. S. Highway 2 andpatented mining claims in the Mount Baptist area.Snowmobilers who had been using an area insidethe western boundary opposed the designation. Someconcerns were voiced over timber potential, buttimber production in the area had always beenconsidered economically marginal.Lee MetcalfThe signing of the Lee Metcalf Wilderness andManagement Act of 1983 in October established thenation's first wilderness area on Bureau of LandManagement land. The complex bill designated aswilderness four separate areas in the Madison Rangecomprising 259,000 acres: the BLM's Bear TrapCanyon and the Forest Service's Spanish PeaksPrimitive area, Taylor-Hilgard area and MonumentMountain area.The bill also released 150,000 acres in the area tomultiple use, and removed about 42,000 acres acrossMontana that had been recommended for wildernessor wilderness study from further consideration aswilderness. The bill deleted some acreage from twoexisting wildernesses—the Absaroka-Beartooth andthe UL Bend—to provide access corridors.Finally, the act authorized the trade of ForestService land in the Jack Creek area to BurlingtonNorthern to resolve difficulties with checkerboardownership.RattlesnakeThe Rattlesnake Wilderness and NationalRecreation Area is located less than five miles northof Missoula. As the source of Missoula's watersupply, the area had been maintained in pristinecondition. This natural area was recognized during theRARE IIprocess as having wilderness potential; theForest Service recommended further study because ofpotential management problems, particularly theheavy use of the lower Rattlesnake and private landownership within the area. It has been Forest Servicepolicy not to recommend wilderness for any areawhere there are private inholdings.The Friends of the Rattlesnake (FOR), aconservation organization, proposed designating thenorthern half of the area as wilderness, whilereserving the southern half for recreation and wildlifehabitat; Montana Representative Pat Williamsintroduced legislation that followed the FORproposal. Motorcycle clubs protested this suggestionbecause it restricted their access to the higher lakes.Senator John Melcher introduced a Senate proposalthat included a recreation corridor up RattlesnakeCreek from Franklin Bridge to Wrangle Creek, sixmiles into the wilderness proposed in the House bill.Compromise legislation established a 33,000-acrewilderness and a 28,000-acre recreation area with thesix-mile recreation corridor into the wilderness.President Carter signed the Rattlesnake Wildernessand National Recreation Area Act in October 1980.Other Recent ActivityA special category of wilderness is represented bythe Mission Mountain Tribal Wilderness. This areawas created by tribal ordinance regulating land use onpart of the Flathead Indian Reservation. Establishedin 1979 by the Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribal Council, this designation protects an89,500-acre area on the west face of the Missions. TheTribal Wilderness Ordinance was patterned after the1964 Wilderness Act. The tribal management will becoordinated with the Forest Service, whose MissionMountains Wilderness borders the tribal wilderness onits eastern side.Wild and Scenic RiversThe 1968 Wild and Scenic Rivers Act identified theUpper Missouri and Flathead Rivers in Montana aspotential additions to the Wild and Scenic Riverssystem. Portions of both rivers became part of thesystem in 1976. About 149 miles of the MissouriRiver, from Fort Benton to the Fred RobinsonBridge, and 219 miles of the North, Middle and SouthForks of the Flathead River, were classified as wild,scenic or recreational.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 30Wildlands inMontanaMontana currently has 3.9 million acres, or 3.6percent of the area of the state,included in fifteenwilderness areas. Most Montana wildernesses are onnational forest land in the Rockies. The U.S. Fish andWildlife Service manages the only wilderness areas inGreat Plains Montana; at present there are noNational Park Service wildernesses in Montana andonly one BLM wilderness area.There are, however, two recommendations pendingbefore Congress for 1.1 million acres of national parkwilderness in Montana, along with an additional645,000 acres of Forest Service and wildlife rangelands. The majority of the Forest Service areas wererecommended for wilderness as a result of RARE II.Close to 90 percent of this acreage is located in RockyMountain Montana.In addition to the designated wildernesses andwilderness recommendations before Congress, 1 .7million acres of Montana Forest Service and BLMlands are still under study as potential wilderness.Almost half of the study areas are located on BLMlands in Great Plains Montana. Of the Forest Serviceland, nine of the study areas were mandated by theMontana Wilderness Act; the remainder are RARE IIfurther planning areas.ElkhornsThe Omnibus Wilderness Act of 1976 directed theForest Service to study the Elkhorns for wildernesssuitability. In its 1978 draft report on the area, theForest Service recommended 25,000 acres forwilderness out of a total of 64,000 acres. Manyconservation and sportsmen groups felt that priorityhad been given to resource development at theexpense of other resource values. A new plan, issuedin 1981, emphasized wildHfe protection. In February1982, Senator John Melcher introduced legislation toestablish an 85,000-acre Elkhorn WildlifeManagement Unit.Wilderness Study Act AreasThree of the four MWSA areas evaluated so farhave been recommended for non-wilderness. Part ofthe fourth, the Taylor, has been recommended forwilderness. The recommendations for the Big Snowiesand the Middle Fork-Judith areas in the Lewis andClark National Forest emphasize recreation andtimber. The Beaverhead National Forest planproposes to manage most of the West Pioneer areafor motorized and non-motorized dispersedrecreation. The remainder of the area is scheduled forrange and timber management. These are preliminaryrecommendations, and Congress will make the finaldecisions.BLM Wilderness ReviewBLM has evaluated eight Wilderness Study Areas inthe Dillon Resource Area. It recommended that atotal of 27,211 acres in three WSA's—the RubyMountains, the Blacktail Mountains, and FarlinCreek—be designated wilderness. The remainingareas, totaling 67,198 acres, are recommended fornon-wilderness.The BLM Lewistown District Office has consideredthe wilderness suitability of twelve WSA's along theMissouri and Musselshell Rivers. The studyrecommends 79,700 acres of wilderness: one completeWSA and parts of four others. The studyrecommends non-wilderness for 90,430 acres,including seven complete areas.Oil and Gas LeasingForest Service policy before the passage of theWilderness Act had been to recommend against oiland gas leasing in primitive areas and wildernessareas. The Wilderness Act recommended that thepolicies and authorities in effect at the time of itspassage continue. The authority to lease wilderness orprimitive areas is reserved to the chief of the ForestService. The chief will not normally recommend orapprove mineral leases or permits in wilderness orprimitive areas unless directional drilling or othermethods can avoid any disturbance of the surface.The BLM actually issues the mineral leases, but as apractical matter itroutinely accepts the ForestService's recommendations.Since 1977, the Forest Service had received so manylease applications that a backlog developed. In 1980the court, in Mountain States Legal Foundation v.Andrus et at, ordered the Forest Service to processthis backlog. The Energy Security Act of 1980 alsocalled for the processing of all lease applications evenbefore the completion of the forest managementplans.To deal with these requirements, the Forest Servicedeveloped guidelines for oil, gas and mineral leasingin wilderness areas, areas recommended forwilderness, and lands under study. The basic alternativesare: (1) make leasing recommendations ordecisions with reasonable stipulations to protect

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 31wilderness character; (2) make recommendations ordecisions to deny leasing based on grounds of sitespecificconcerns; and (3) make recommendations ordecisions to deny leasing for lands under study on thegrounds that leasing is incompatible with preservationof existing wilderness character. In Learned v. Watt,the court ruled that federal agencies are not requiredto accept lease applications, but can reject them onthe basis of threats to recreational and scenic values.The RARE II further planning areas were specificallyleft open to oil and gas leasing so the extent of theresources could be determined.The initialphase of oil and gas development isexploration; on federal lands an exploration permit isrequired from the appropriate land manager. In 1980,the application for an exploration permit in the BobMarshall-Great Bear-Scapegoat Wilderness complextouched off a controversy that is still not over. Earlyin the year. Consolidated Georex Geophysical (CGG)of Denver, Colorado, applied to the Forest Service forpermission to fire 5,400 explosive charges (270,000pounds of dynamite) along 207 miles of seismic linesin the wilderness areas. In April 1980, the regionalforester denied the request on the grounds that CGGdid not hold any leases on the land where it wanted todo the seismic testing.In July 1980, CGG, the Rocky Mountain Oil andGas Association, and the Mountain States LegalFoundation appealed the decision to the chief of theForest Service. The Forest Service chief remanded theregional forester's ruling and directed him to make adecision on oil and gas exploration in the BobMarshall Wilderness. The instruction read: "...untilJanuary 1, 1984, compatibility with the wildernessenvironment is not a determining factor in issuing aprospecting permit." In order to deny the permit,reasons unrelated to wilderness had to be identified.On May 15, 1981, the regional forester deniedCGG's lease application, citing the possibility ofprejudicing a leasing EIS underway for the same area,possible repeated impacts if oil and gas leases wereissued, conflicts with private recreation and outfitting,and conflicts with wildlife, geologic, scenic andrecreation values. The regional forester acknowledgedthat the real issue eventually will be whether or not togrant oil and gas leases.Beginning in April 1981, Representative PatWilliams sought to invoke Section 204(d) of FLPMA,which allows the House Committee on the Interior toprohibit exploration and leasing in a wilderness areawhen "...an emergency situation exists." On May 21,1981, the committee invoked the clause, informingSecretary of the Interior James Watt that land withinthe Bob Marshall Wilderness complex was to beimmediately withdrawn from oil and gas leasing. Atthat time 350 lease applications were pending for thethree wilderness areas.The Department of the Interior withdrew the BobMarshall Wilderness complex from mineral leasing thefirst week in June. The Mountain States LegalFoundation and the Pacific States Legal Foundationpromptly challenged the order in court.U. S. Attorney General William French Smithstated the Bob Marshall Resolution wasunconstitutional because it violated the separation ofpowers between the executive and legislative branches.The Federal District Court in Billings overturned theBob Marshall Resolution on December 16, 1981.Judge Jameson allowed Secretary Watt to revoke theleasing withdrawal, but also told Watt to adhere to apromise he made November 19, 1981 that he wouldnot issue wilderness leases until June 1, 1982. Wattcomplied, extending the moratorium until the end ofthe 1982 fall congressional session.In February 1982, Representative Manuel Lujan(R-NM) introduced legislation for the Department ofthe Interior that would have withdrawn wildernesslands from new mineral developments until the year2000. The president would have had the authority toopen the lands to mineral activity, however, if therewere an "urgent national need." The bill also wouldhave set deadlines for any additions to the NationalWilderness Preservation System.The legislation did not pass. Representatives Lujanand John Sieberling (D-Ohio) worked out acompromise bill, HR6542, which would havepermanently withdrawn wilderness areas from oil andgas, geothermal, coal, oilshale and phosphate leasing.Interim withdrawals would protect the RARE IIareasrecommended for wilderness or for further planningand congressionally designated study areas until eitherCongress acts or the forest management plans wererewritten in the mid-1990s. Seismic exploration wouldhave been banned in designated wilderness areas. Andthe president would have been able to open awilderness area to leasing if there was an "urgentnational need," but only with approval of Congress.The bill did not deal with hard-rock mining orwithdraw BLM wilderness study areas from leasing.The House passed the Lujan-Sieberling "WildernessProtection Act of 1982" by a margin of 340-52, butthe measure failed to pass the Senate.On September 17, 1982, the House AppropriationsCommittee voted to forbid the spending of federalfunds to process leases or exploration permits for thewild lands. The panel attached the measure to acontinuing appropriations resolution. The Senateapproved an identical appropriations measure by voicevote on September 30. The prohibition remained ineffect until the statutory deadline of January 1, 1984.The administration has said it is willing to accept apermanent ban on oil and gas drilling in wildernesspreserves, but wants limits on further expansion ofthe wilderness system, deadlines for Congress to acton wilderness recommendations, and permission forseismic testing in wilderness areas. As this report goesto press, the conflict over oil and gas leasing onwilderness lands continues unabated and unresolved.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 32Hard-rock MiningSection 4(d)(3) of the Wilderness Act allowedstaking of claims and exploration for hard-rockminerals until the end of 1983. After that, only claimsof known commercial value are allowed to be mined.Proposed wilderness areas have always been studiedthoroughly for their mineral potential. If significantdeposits are suspected, Congress excludes themineralized area from the wilderness. The StillwaterComplex was excluded from the Absaroka-BeartoothWilderness and the Forest Service reclassified 28,(X)0acres of the Scotchman Peak roadless area fromwilderness candidacy to a status of known mineralreserves.Controversy over hard-rock mining in wildernessareas in Montana has centered on the impacts ofdrilling on water quality and grizzly bear habitat. In1977, the American Smelting and Refining Company(ASARCO) began to develop claims in the ChicagoPeak area of the Cabinet Wilderness. The impact ofthe project on grizzly bears was assessed by the U. S.Fish and Wildlife Service, which concluded that theexploratory drilling would not affect the numbers,distribution, or reproduction of the grizzly bear to theextent that jeopardy of the species would occur.Subsequently, two test holes for copper and silverdeposits were drilled in 1979. In February 1980,ASARCO submitted a three-year operating plan.The Forest Service completed an EnvironmentalAssessment in June 1980. The key issues addressedwere: (1) wilderness visitor enjoyment and thewilderness experience; (2) grizzly bears; (3) mountaingoats; (4) water quality of lakes and streams; (5)fragile soils and vegetation; and (6) the need for anEIS to examine the cumulative effects of the project.The Forest Service concluded that the projectoperations could jeopardize the grizzly bears. Itproposed such mitigating measures as restrictions ondrilling (with no drilling after September 30 of eachyear), temporary and permanent road closures, anddeferred timber sales. The Forest Service required allcrews and equipment to be carried into the area byhelicopter along established flight corridors and onlyat certain times. Lake drawdowns were also limited.The road closures reportedly irritated local residentswho felt the closures favored ASARCO, did notprotect the grizzly, and made the residents trespassers.ASARCO drilled only ten holes during the 1980season. Researchers from the Wilderness Institute ofthe University of Montana monitored the operations.They found the noise from the helicopters and drillrigs impacted the naturalness and solitude of the areaand documented violations of the flight corridor andtime restrictions. The authors made numerousrecommendations to ASARCO and the Forest Service.Conservation groups filed a suit in September 1980to stop the ASARCO project. They contended thegovernment had not acted to protect the Cabinetgrizzlies and had not complied with the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act. A federal judge ruled inApril 1981 that the Forest Service had complied withthe law when it authorized the ASARCO project. Anappeal was denied.GrazingStockgrowers have generally been opposed to thedesignation of forest lands as wilderness. AlthoughSection 4(d)(4)(2) of the Wilderness Act specificallystates that livestock grazing is permitted in wildernessareas, stockgrowers feel that wilderness designationreduces or eliminates grazing. A Congressionalcommittee agreed that national forest regulations andpolicies were acting to discourage grazing inwilderness, or were unduly restricting on-the-groundactivities necessary for proper management.RARE IIhearings and field inspection tripsrevealed that national forest policies were subject tovarying interpretations in the field that often were notin accordance with Section 4(d)(4)(2) of theWilderness Act. Rather than amend the act, theCongressional committee proposed guidelines andpolicies which the Secretary of Agriculture accepted:(1) There shall be no curtailments of grazing simplybecause of a wilderness designation. Any adjustmentswill be the result of normal grazing and landmanagement planning. (2) The maintenance ofsupporting facilities (such as fences, line cabins andstock tanks) that existed before the wildernessdesignation may continue. There also may beoccasional use of motorized equipment where therewas a prior history of use. (3) The use of "naturalmaterials" for replacement or reconstruction offacilities should not be required unless the costs ofusing such materials are reasonable. (4) Newimprovements and facilities are permissible forresource protection and efficient management but notto accommodate increased grazing. (5) The use ofmotorized vehicles is allowed for emergency purposesonly.Motorized RecreationUsers of off-road vehicles are generally opposed toareas being designated as wilderness because theirmachines are not allowed in wilderness areas.Montanans, in general, do not favor the use ofmotorized vehicles in wilderness areas. In a Gallatin

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 33County poll, three-fourths of those responding didnot want snowmobiles in the proposed Lee MetcalfWilderness. Only 10 percent said they hadsnowmobiled in the forests.In Montana, areas have been excluded fromwilderness because of opposition from snowmobile ormotorcycle groups. About 9,600 acres were deletedfrom the Great Bear Wilderness to provide areas forsnowmobiling. Under the Montana Wilderness StudyAct, a snowmobile trail from Bozeman to WestYellowstone that crossed the Taylor-Hilgard area wasallowed to continue under the condition that thewilderness character of the area be maintained. Thearea encompassing that snowmobile trail has beenproposed for either national recreation area or wildlifemanagement status. A six-mile recreation corridorinto the Rattlesnake Wilderness allows access for bothsnowmobilers and motorcyclists.Checkerboard LandsThroughout the West, the federal governmentgranted alternate sections of land to finance theconstruction of the railroads. This occurred before theestablishment of the National Forest System, buttoday many of these sections are within theboundaries of the national forests. In Montana,Burlington Northern (BN) presently owns much ofthis land. Today, the checkerboard land ownershippattern creates problems for wilderness managers.In the Rattlesnake Wilderness and NationalRecreation Area, Burlington Northern and theMontana Power Company together ownedapproximately 43 percent of the land. Thischeckerboard ownership problem was resolved whenMontana Power traded its Rattlesnake lands for"bidding credits" on government-managed coal landsin southeastern Montana. BN agreed to trade forForest Service lands outside the proposed wilderness.In the Madison Range, BN owns 26 percent of theJack Creek drainage. The Jack Creek area has beenthe site of considerable controversy because of themixed land ownership. In 1977 the Forest Service andBN attempted to exchange 179,000 acres, but werestopped when Congress required all land exchanges ofmore than 6,400 acres to be approved by Congress.Since then, BN has been pursuing road building andtimber harvest in the Jack Creek area. The U.S.Attorney General issued an opinion that BN has aright of reasonable access to its lands, which nowincludes a parcel traded to BN under authorization ofthe Metcalf Act.BN owns 2,500 acres along the South Fork of LoloCreek in the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness.Negotiations with the Forest Service broke down inthe summer of 1982 and BN could sell the land toprivate investors. If that should happen, the landwould not be covered by wilderness designation. TheForest Service is required to allow access to theacreage, so a road could be built into the area,possibly threatening the surrounding wilderness lands.Energy CorridorsFew suitable locations for high-voltage transmissionlines exist across the Rocky Mountains in Montana.Two suggested corridors have been in areas studiedfor wilderness. In one case, the corridor was movedout of the proposed wilderness. In the other, the areawas dropped from wilderness consideration.A Bonneville Power Administration utility corridorwas proposed for the Logan Creek and Dirty FaceCreek drainages in the Great Bear Wilderness. Thiswould have bisected the area and possibly attracteddevelopment. Some argued that there was apparentlyno demonstrated need for the corridor, and it was notincluded in the final Great Bear Wilderness plan. Inthe final legislation, the Senate deleted 1,200 acresalong U. S. Highway 2 to make room for a powerline.The Montana Power Company has had plans since1977 for a 161 -kv line from Ennis to the Big SkyResort via Jack Creek. DNRC granted approval forthe project in 1977. Although a certificate of publicneed was granted, there are now questions as to theneed for the power. Conservationists and guest ranchowners would prefer to have the powerline followexisting corridors rather than Jack Creek. The ForestService did not act on this proposal while the Taylor-Hilgard study was underway.BPA has identified two potential corridors throughthe Madison Range. One is Jack Creek. The other isfrom the Gallatin River, up the Taylor Fork, anddown Indian Creek to the Madison River.Recreation ImpactsThe Wilderness Act defines wilderness as an areathat "...generally appears to have been affectedprimarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint ofman's work substantially unnoticeable." Today, aswilderness areas receive more use, the impacts of manare becoming more noticeable. The most severeimpacts occur near campsites and trails. Controls, inthe form of education, party size limits, and day useonly areas, have been instituted in some areas to

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 34prevent overuse.Campsite damage appears to be more a function oftype of use than amount. Reduced plant cover is themost obvious effect of human use. Significant loss ofplant cover can occur with only slightuse, and theloss appears to stabilize with increased use. The lossof plant cover leads to increased soil erosion. Thetype of vegetation at a campsite changes as thosespecies not able to withstand the trampling die. Treesnear popular campsites are quite often mutilated andrecreational livestock trample vegetation nearcampsites. Tying the livestock to trees damages boththe trunks and roots.Both trails and campsites change as use increases.Trail width increases slowly with increased traffic.Horse trails tend to be deeper, but not wider, thanhiker-only trails. Wet meadows and alpine tundra areparticularly susceptible to trampling. Helgath foundthat landform, vegetation type and trail steepness hadgreater effects on trail erosion or bog formation thandid elevation, aspect, soil properties, slope steepness,or amount of use.ResourcesFish, C.B. and R.L. Bury, "Wilderness Visitor Management:diversity and agency policies," Journal of Forestry,79(9): 608-612, 1981.U.S. Forest Service, "Forest Service Oil and Gas andMineral Leasing on Designated Wilderness Study Areas andCarter Administration-endorsed Wilderness Proposals,"Federal Register 14 May 46(93): 26667-26669; Rare II FinalEIS, 1970.

FORESTRYEQC Eighth Annua/ Report - Page 35In Montana, the vast tracts of forested land, thecycHcal, sometimes severe unemployment in timberdependentcommunities, and the frequent disputesover the appropriate use of forestlands all serve toremind us of the environmental and economicimportance of forestland. The forest industry providesnot only wood products and direct employment, butalso important wildlife habitat, recreation forthousands of visitors and grazing for domesticlivestock. Forestland constitutes a vital link in thehydrological cycle of the Northern Rockies, storingand distributing moisture. The importance of thestate's forestland extends well beyond timberproduction.The federal government recognizes this importance.Spurred by concern over the condition of forestlandand the future supply of forest commodities, the U.S.Forest Service initiated an extended resource planningprocess for its lands; the proposed programs willlikely have broad physical, social, and economicimpacts on all forestlands and their associatedcommunities. Because it owns such a large percentageof the forests in Montana, the directions taken by theForest Service could dominate the future ofMontana's forests. By determining the availability andcost of the very large volume of federal timber. ForestService policy may also have major impacts upon theintensity and location of nonfederal timber harvesting.Current Forest Service planning efforts are directedprimarily by the Forest and Rangeland RenewableResources Planning Act of 1974 (RPA), as amendedby the 1976 National Forest Management Act(NFMA). In addition, the Forest and RangelandRenewable Resources Research Act of 1978 mandatesthat the Department of Agriculture collect andanalyze "such facts as may be necessary and useful inthe determination of ways and means needed tobalance the demand for and supply of these renewableresources."

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 36The national RPA goals, established in 1980,guided the establishment of goals for the ForestService's Northern Region (Montana, northern Idaho,northeastern Washington and the Dakotas), publishedin 1981 as the Northern Regional Plan. Afteridentifying important regional issues and managementconcerns and national guidelines, the NorthernRegional Plan recommended management directionson a variety of concerns affecting national forests.Forest plans are the most specific and detailed stepin the Forest Service planning process. They areguided by the goals and policies identified in theregional plan, although exact compliance withregional objectives is not required. Forest plansaddress specific management concerns and establishmanagement directions to accomplish the broad goalsof the regional and national plans.Currently, draft forest plans have been issued forthe Lolo, Beaverhead, Lewis and Clark, Flathead andKootenai national forests. Plans for the remainder ofMontana's national forests are expected by 1984.Recent USDA data indicate that Montana possessesabout 22,559,300 acres of forestland, defined as thoseareas at least10 percent stocked with trees of all sizes,or that formerly had such cover without beingpermanently converted to other land uses. Otherrecent studies have arrived at slightly different totals,usually due to different criteria for the inclusion ofmarginally forested areas. The USDA study includedforest-rangeland transition zones, pinyon-juniper andchaparral ecosystems and urban fringe forests, so itsestimate is probably close to a maximum.Lodgepole pine, Douglas fir, fir-spruce andponderosa pine ecosystems are the most extensiveforest types in Montana. Stands dominated by thesespecies account for over three-quarters of the state'sforested acreage.Forestland in Montana is primarily located in themountainous western part. Central and easternMontana forestlands are largely confined to the slopesof mountain ranges and to hardwood ecosystems ofthe major river valleys. Statewide, forests constituteabout 24.3 percent of Montana's land area. Thefederal government owns the majority of Montana'sforestland, with comparatively small areas under stateor private management.Accurate data concerning changes in Montana'stotal forestland are unavailable, although there is nodoubt that nineteenth and early twentieth centurysettlement resulted in some clearing of timberland foragriculture. The Forest Service estimates the RockyMountains-Great Plains region lost some 600,000acres of forestland between 1970 and 1980; however,the majority of this loss reportedly occurred insouthwestern states, as pinyon-juniper ecosystemswere converted to grazing land.The long-range estimate is for a two percentdecrease in the nation's forested acreage by the year2030. Much of this is expected to occur in southernNational Forest Commercial Acreage(Thousands of Acres)Beaverhead

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 37Relatively little change in the commercial forestlandbase is expected over the 1980-2030 Forest Serviceplanning period. Projections specific to Montana arenot available, but the Forest Service expects the majorchanges in commercial forest acreages in the RockyMountains to primarily result from Wilderness Systemallocations and the conversion of small privateforestlands to nonforest uses, especially grazing.In Montana a major change in forest industryownership or classification is not foreseen. Privateowners and the state are negotiating land exchangeswith federal agencies, but such arrangements areusually contingent on the nonfederal owner sufferingno loss of commercial forest value. Recent changes inForest Service policy are likely to discourage suchexchanges.ProductivityTimber production is subject to various economicfactors beyond the control of the forest corporationsor public land managers. However, timber plannersexpect increasing timber harvests on northern RockyMountain forestlands. The Forest Service projects anincrease of one-third in the Rocky Mountain regionby the end of the 1980-2030 planning period. Despitethis,the Forest Service's Northern Regional Plansuggests that while the demand for Montana forestproducts will increase over the next 50 years, totalproduction from the region's forestlands will notincrease through the year 2050. Rates of production inthe region are low by national standards, reflectingrelatively low productivity in the Rockies and anexpectation that non-timber resources will continue tobe accorded greater importance here than in someother regions. In recent years there has been a declinein production from national forestlands in Montanaand an increase in the harvests from privateforestlands. The percent harvested from state landshas increased somewhat during recent years of lowtotal production, but the absolute volume has beenquite steady.This trend is expected to reverse. Recent productionfrom private industrial forestlands reflects the rapidelimination of old-growth stands; the harvest levelsachieved in this manner are not expected beyond themid-1980s. For this reason. Forest Service planningfor the Northern Region calls for an increase in thenational forests' production share through most of the50-year planning period. To meet this anticipateddemand, long-range objectives on national forests inMontana include significant increases in timberofferings. In the short term, the Northern Regionanticipates 12.7 percent more timber offered for salefrom 1982 to 1986.Of the national forests in Montana, the three in thenorthwest (Flathead, Kootenai, and Lolo) contain themost commercial forestland; they also have a higherpercentage of their areas within higher productivitycategories than do the other national forests of thestate.These three forests have accounted for overthree-quarters of Montana's national forest timberproduction since 1977. The Custer, Lewis and Clark,and Helena forests have accounted for less than 5percent of Montana's national forest timberproduction over the same period. The relatively lowproductivity characteristic of Montana's southwesternand eastern national forests precludes any majorchange in this distribution.Checkerboard OwnershipMontana has large areas of forestland that alternatein private and federal ownership. This ownershippattern presents an important management problem toboth government and private owners. Commonlyreferred to as checkerboard lands, these areas ofmixed ownership often cause problems over access totimberlands, opposing or incompatible managementpriorities, and accentuated environmental degradationdue to uncoordinated silvicultural activities on thepart of the various owners.The Northern Region's planning process includedan analysis of the Forest Service's policy regardingcheckerboard forest lands. The Regional Planrecommends allowing the individual forestsconsiderable latitude in dealing with areas ofalternating ownership.The Northern Region has operated "...with thegeneral objective to consolidate National Forest landsintermingled in a checkerboard pattern with landsowned by large private corporations...." Under aproposed new policy, the consolidation ofintermingled lands would no longer be a general goal.Land consolidation would still be pursued for somemanagement ends, notably wilderness management,but exchanges of land would not be initiated solely toimprove the efficiency of federal or private timbermanagement.The Forest Service concluded that consolidationcould have a number of adverse impacts, such aschanges in county tax bases resulting from the federalacquisition of private lands, a decrease in the nationalforest commercial land base if productive nationalforestlands are exchanged for poorer private lands,and a decrease in habitat diversity on nationalforestlands with possible adverse effects on wildlife.The Northern Regional Plan recommends avoidingland exchanges with corporate forest owners if theywould result in "...a significant loss of the total

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 38National Forest acreage classified as available andcapable of timber production." The retention ofcheckerboard ownership means that forestland qualityand productivity in these areas will continue todepend heavily on cooperation between federal andcorporate owners. Some management inefficiencieswill remain, but the Forest Service will probablyretain more low-elevation, highly productiveforestland. This may help meet regional and nationalharvest goals.ManagementThe National Forest Management Act stipulatesthat each Forest Service region establish standards fora variety of forest management practices, includingsilviculture systems (even-aged vs. uneven-agedharvesting), the permissible size of tree openingsresulting from harvest activities, the duration of thoseopenings, biological growth potential for commercialforestlands, utilization standards for harvested acres,and air quality standards associated with suchsilviculture activities as slash disposal.In most instances, these practices have beenestablished in the past at the forest level or rangerdistrict level, with little formal guidance from regionalpolicy. The practice of clearcutting on national forestshas long been controversial, due to the visual impactsand the severity of the associated soil, water, andother impacts. Public pressure and changingmanagement priorities have resulted in somereductions in the Forest Service's dependence onclearcutting in Montana's national forests, includingdecreasing the size of individual clearcuts.Since 1973, Forest Service guidelines haveencouraged keeping the size of clearcuts below 40acres, although the degree to which this loose policyhas been adhered to is unknown. The Forest Service'spreferred policy, as identified in the Regional Plan, isto require public review and approval by the regionalforester of clearcuts larger than 40 acres unless one ormore of several management concerns are better metby larger harvest units. These exceptions include caseswhere:— a natural catastrophic event (such as wind, fire,or disease) has occurred;— larger cuts will help reduce road construction;— visual quality objectives are better met by theshaping of cut acres to landforms; and,— existing shelterwood cuts require the timelyremoval of shelter trees.The region's original proposal was to limit standopenings to no more than 80 acres. The size ofclearcut units has various implications for bothresource management and harvesting efficiency. TheForest Service considers that larger cuts are more costefficient in harvesting and sale preparation, while the40-acre standard is thought to be roughly optimal forreplanting and associated site preparation. Evensmaller openings might be preferable in terms ofdirect water and soil impacts, but smaller openingsrequire a higher density of logging roads, and roadconstruction is one of the major sources of soil andwater disruption associated with logging.The region recommended retaining a regrowthstandard of 20 ftVacre/year as the minimumbiological growth potential for a forestland to beconsidered as commercial. The region has determinedthat lands below this standard are too slow toreestablish timber stands to justify the construction ofroad systems. There was some discussion of raisingthe minimum above 20 ftVacre/yr; a higher standardwould be beneficial to some wildlife, recreational andwatershed resources, as less acreage would bedisturbed by road construction and timber harvesting.The Forest Service calculated raising the minimumstandard to 50 ftVacre/yr would cause a 12.3 percentreduction in commercial acreage statewide. Thechange in the base would be greater in central andeastern Montana, where a 25 percent reduction inacreage was predicted. Western Montana forestswould be relatively unaffected, with a reduction ofonly 3.7 percent. The timber volume available forharvesting under the higher standard is uncertain.However, the reduction would be much less than thechange in acreage, as only the least productiveforestlands would be deleted.The NFMA requires that regional standards be setfor the minimum tree size requirement for inclusion inthe calculated volume of national forest timber sales.The Northern Regional Plan recommends reducing theminimum size one inch from the existing standards atboth measuring points: breast height and top. Areduction in the usable percentage of a tree (percentsound) standard for inclusion in sale volumes is alsoplanned, from 33-1/3 to 25 percent.Several effects from this change in standards areexpected. The inclusion of smaller trees in the assessedvolume of Forest Service timber sales will probablydecrease the unit price paid on timber sales. However,the increased volume assessed to each sale from thenew standards may result in higher net receipts.The region sees its new standards as one way ofincreasing its annual harvest. These standards do notrequire timber purchasers to use these smaller-sizedtrees, but they must pay for this additional volume.The policy will probably lead to greater utilization ofsmall logs. This will reduce the slash left on saletracts, possibly decreasing the firewood available tothe public and the organic material returned to thesoil.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 39Evenflow DepartureThe NFMA also permits national forests to departfrom the Forest Service's long-standing policy of nondeclining,evenflow harvest. A 1979 presidentialmemorandum specifically required the Forest Serviceto consider such departures, particularly on thosenational forests with large volumes of old-growthtimber. Among the strong candidates for this changewere the Lolo, Flathead, and Kootenai forests. TheLolo planning team elected not to propose anydeparture from evenflow harvesting. The Beaverheadand Lewis and Clark National Forests included suchoptions in their draft plans, but neither recommendsthe poHcy for their forests.Insects and DiseaseInsect and disease damage to forests continues to bea major concern to federal, state and private landmanagers.Timber managers consider the mountain pine beetleto be the most destructive forest insect in the state.1981 the Forest Service inventoried over 2.4 millionacres of infested Montana forestland. The majority ofthis infestation (over 2 million acres) is in lodgepolepine stands, particularly on the Gallatin, Beaverhead,Flathead and Kootenai national forests andYellowstone and Glacier national parks andsurrounding non-federal land. Areas of less severeinfestation are scattered through western and centralMontana. In addition, over 80,000 acres of ponderosapine stands are affected, primarily in central andeastern Montana. Smaller acreages of western whitepine (along the South Fork of the Flathead River),whitebark pine and limber pine are also affected.The mountain pine beetle infestation is increasingon portions of the Kootenai National Forest, butlevels are currently static or decreasing on the rest ofthe timberlands in the state.Western spruce budworm populations haveremained relatively high in southwest and southcentralMontana over the past several years. However,budworm defoliation statewide has decreased for thefourth consecutive year. A major decrease in damageon the Gallatin National Forest was primarilyresponsible for the decline, due to unfavorableweather conditions for the insect. But a majorincrease in damage on the Bitterroot National Forestand surrounding non-federal lands resulted in littleInchange statewide for 1981. A variety of other, lesswidespread forest insects are monitored by the ForestService's Cooperative Forestry and Pest Managementoffice. While none of these is currently damaginglarge amounts of merchantable timber, they are ofconcern to timber management personnel; cyclicalpopulation outbreaks of any of these may lead tosuppression and control programs on the part oftimber owners.Disease damage to Montana forestlands is causedprimarily by several root diseases, Armillaria RootRot being the most common. These diseases causeimportant mortality and loss of productivity overlarge areas of the state's forestland. Some forestryprofessionals expect that root disease may overtakethe pine beetle as the most commercially damagingforest organism.The Custer and much of the Deer Lodge andBeaverhead national forests are relatively free ofArmillaria Root Rot, which is most damaging in abroad band extending from west-central to centralMontana, including portions of the Lolo, Kootenai,Helena and Lewis and Clark national forests, as wellas adjoining state and private lands. Armillaria RootRot poses a difficult management problem because itmost readily becomes established in stumps beforespreading to nearby living trees. Areas thinned forsilvicultural purposes (including the control of otherforest pests) thus provide favorable conditions forroot diseases, which are reportedly spreading in suchthinned areas.National and regional forest planning teams believethat reducing timber losses to insect and diseasedamage is one important means of increasing U. S.forest production. Montana's land managementagencies and private owners are planning to pursuethis goal with an expansion of management practicesalready in use. These include preventive harvesting ofundamaged stands considered to be at high risk;mixing species in stands to reduce the chances of pestepidemics; harvest methods to reduce pathogens suchas root disease and dwarf mistletoe; and chemical andbiological spray programs where appropriate.The Northern Regional Plan emphasizes theincreased harvest of insect-killed and disease-killedtimber and integrated pest management strategies(IPM) involving the identification and harvesting ofhigh-risk stands. Computer modeling of the behaviorof some forest insects is assisting in the understandingof outbreak patterns, although these techniques havenot yet been applied to allof the important insectspecies. These strategies are expected to reduce timberlosses to insects and disease in the state,but theyrequire access to the stands to be treated, sometimesleading to increased road construction.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 40Chemical pest control has generated muchcontroversy. Noxious weed control, using theherbicides Picloram and 2,4-D, has been undertakenon some Forest Service lands in the state. The ForestService planned to treat about 4,000 acres in 1982,most of them on road right-of-way or rangeland. Butaerial chemical spraying of replanted forestland, suchas that done experimentally in Idaho in 1982, is notanticipated on Montana forestland. Previous attemptsto use chemicals to control large outbreaks ofmountain pine beetle have proven uneconomical;neither the Forest Service nor the state plans largescalechemical treatments for the pine beetle, althoughlocal treatment in areas such as campgrounds andadministrative centers will probably continue.Both Department of State Lands and Forest Servicepersonnel indicate that future chemical treatment ofspruce budworm outbreaks is a possibility, althoughno specific plans for major spraying programs havebeen made. The Forest Service evaluates chemicalcontrol programs on a cost-benefit basis, and hopes tominimize the use of chemicals through integrated pestmanagement strategies.An experimental application of the microbialinsecticide Bacillus thuringiensis was carried out on aspruce budworm-infested plot in the Deer LodgeNational Forest in 1981, but an evaluation in 1982indicated a significantly lower rate of budworm killthan could be achieved through chemical spraying.However, there were reportedly problems with thetiming of the application and the subsequent testing,and the Forest Service hopes to continue experimentalefforts with this and other biological controls.ResourcesMontana Dept. of State Lands Forestry Division, ForestArea and Timber Resource Statistics for Slate and PrivateLands in Western Montana Counties, 1977, Helena, 1982.U.S. Forest Service, An Analysis of the Timber Situation inthe United States, 1952-2050, Washington, D.C., 1980; TheNorthern Regional Plan Final EIS, 1981; Forest and DiseaseConditions in Montana, 1982; forest plans for nationalforests, various dates.

MINERAL RESOURCESEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 41Hard-rock mining in Montana has historically beenconsidered synonymous with gold, silver and coppermining. These metals account for a large percentageof the state's mineral output. However, the miningand mineral processing industry in Montana dependson a large number of minerals; over thirty mineralsexist in potentially commercial quantities. While someof these probably won't be economical to mine in thenear future, others have been and will be recovered,at least as by-products in the mining or processing ofgold, silver or copper. Presently, the demand forMontana's mineral products is low. But in the longterm the expected demand for products derived fromMontana's mineral resources makes expandingproduction likely.poor market conditions reduced production in 1982,the processing facility has recently expanded andfuture production will likely increase.BariteBarite is fairly common throughout the western partof the state. The largest use of barite is in drillingmuds for the oil and gas industry. Increases indomestic oil and gas drilling in the late 1970sincreased demand for Montana barite. MontanaBarite Company, the state's major processor of themineral, tripled its processing capacity in 1981. Butany decline in drilling activity will reduce bariteproduction.AntimonyU. S. Antimony's Babbit mine and mill complex inSanders County is one of only two producingantimony mines in the country. The facility employs20 people when it operates at full capacity. AlthoughBentoniteSodium bentonite is a clay mineral of widespreadindustrial value. It is used in the processing of animalfeeds, iron ore and drilling muds, to name a fewapplications. Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 42Montana Nonfuel Mineral ProductionAntimonyshort tons. _Clays thousand short tons, _Copper I recoverable content of ores, etc.)metric tons_ .Gem stonesGold (recoverable content of ores, etc.)troy ounces. _Lead (recoverable content of ores, etc.)metric tons. _Limethousand short tons- _Sand and graveldoSilver (recoverable content of ores, etc.)thousand troy ounces. .Stone (crushed) thousand short tons. _TalcdoZinc (recoverable content of ores, etc )metric tons. _Combined value of barite, cement, gypsum,iron ore (1979 and 19811. peat, phosphaterock, sand and gravel (mdustrial. 1980-81),stone (dimension), tungsten, vermiculite,and values indicated by symbol WTotal^""'""y (thou^nds.*'«""^y69,854NA2582167.0123,3022,527343143,2681008,96515,10636,6187,8065,94026062637,749NA2,0241,962312Value r>..o.,.;.„ Q"»""tyValue(thousands)(thousands)W22,2002769.001M 6,05741,7736,30211,31062,485NA54,267194194" 6,1002,9891.582117.2571001577,621«14,90031.4375.137WSource: U.S. BLMcontain up to 90 percent of the worWs known supplyof this mineral.In recent years there has been a large increase indemand for bentonite; this has resulted in thedevelopment of new facilities in Phillips, Valley andCarter counties. However, activity at most of theseprojects has been at least temporarily curtailed due tothe decline in the oil and gas industry in Montana.Because the industrial uses of bentonite are diverse,and because the potential sources are limited,Montana will probably continue to be a majorproducer of bentonite.CopperLong the mainstay of Montana's mineral industryand once the dominant factor in the state's economy,copper mining in the state is changing on severalfronts. The closure of Anaconda Mineral Company'sBerkeley Pit may be permanent, although largequantities of ore remain.The startup of mining at Lincoln County's TroyMine in 1981 and the strong possibility of furtherdevelopment in that area represent an important shiftin the statewide distribution of copper mining.Exploration for copper and other metals at thehistoric Hog Heaven District in Flathead County iscontinuing, although this deposit may not beeconomically attractive without a significantimprovement in metal prices.Recent explorationprojects have been carried out in Lincoln, Sanders,Silver Bow, Cascade, and Park counties, amongothers.GoldIn recent years, most of the state's gold productionhas occurred as a co-product of copper mining at theBerkeley Pit in Butte. In 1977, about 95 percent ofMontana's gold came from this source.Cyanide heap-leaching of gold and silver oretailings began at the Zortman and Landusky mines inPhillips County in 1980. In that year, statewide goldproduction doubled from the 1979 level, with theZortman and Landusky mines (the ninth and twelfthlargest nationally) taking over as the largestproducers. These leaching operations are expected toexpand considerably in the near future. Placer Amex'sGolden Sunlight Mine near Whitehall began operatingin February 1983; it will provide another major newsource.Smaller-scale placer and hard-rock operations areoperating seasonally in many areas of western andcentral Montana. These are very responsive tovariations in gold prices. They were less activerecently than in previous years of high prices. But theDSL expects it may receive about 20 permitapplications for gold mines in 1984.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 43Lead and ZincLead and zinc commonly occur in many of themining districts of western and central Montana.These metals can be extracted during the processing ofmany of Montana's complex metallic ores, but onlywhen economics justify it. Recently low prices haveresulted in negligible production of both metals in thestate.Notwithstanding, there has been recent explorationfor lead-bearing deposits in Meagher County. In fact,there are probably a number of complex depositsstatewide that would be commercially attractive if leador zinc prices were higher.LimestoneLimestone, used primarily in the manufacture ofPortland cement, ranks sixth in value amongMontana's mineral products. Kaiser CementCorporation's Montana City quarry received DSLauthorization for a major expansion in 1979, andfuture developments of limestone in the state arelikely.SilverIn the recent past. Anaconda's Butte miningoperation accounted for around 90 percent ofMontana's silver output as a co-product of coppermining. The closure of the Berkeley Pit and theopening of major new sources, such as the Troy mineand the Zortman and Landusky mines, haveredistributed the state's silver production. Most of itwill continue to come from complex (multimetallic)deposits, especially copper/silver ores.Silver producers were also heavily affected by recentpoor markets. Planned expansions were postponed ata number of mines, and at least one important permitapplication (for a new open pit mine in RavalliCounty) has been postponed by the applicants.But a permit application has been filed for apotentially important silver/copper/lead project inFlathead County. A number of silver mines areidentified by the Montana Bureau of Mines andGeology as "developing" in Beaverhead, Cascade,Granite, Jefferson and other counties, but they arealso indefinitely postponed.TalcPhosphatePhosphatic rock occurs over a large area ofwestern, central and southern Montana. Currentproduction is confined to Cominco American's WarmSprings mine near Garrison in Powell County, theonly underground phosphate mine in the U. S. Thedemand for western phosphate is expected to expandin the 1990s. Currently, almost 90 percent of thedomestic phosphate is produced in Florida and SouthCarolina.Platinum and Palladium(See the Stillwater Complex section in this chapter.)Sand and GravelBy volume, sand and gravel production is greaterthan that of any other mineral in Montana. In value,it is exceeded only by copper, silver, gold andbentonite. Commercial sand and gravel deposits arewidespread in the northern half of the state and alongthe major river valleys. The cost of transporting sandand gravel is usually high and producers thereforetend to locate pits and quarries near major markets.Montana's production is expected to remain high.Cyprus Industrial Minerals and Pfizer, Inc. operatemultiple talc quarries in Madison County, an areaknown for deposits of this mineral. These companiesrecently expanded their Montana operations and arecontinuing exploration activities. Expandedproduction of talc is probable.TungstenTungsten production has occurred sporadically inMontana, most coming from tungsten/gold ores.While the current production is small, deposits arewidespread and this metal may be one likely toexpand in importance in Montana. The Bureau ofMines and Geology identified two developing sourcesin 1981, one a silver/tungsten/molybdenum mine inBeaverhead County and the other atungsten/molybdenum mine in Broadwater County.The Homestake/Jardine mine in Park County willhave the potential for production of tungsten as a coproduct.And the Montana Tungsten Project in DeerLodge County may become an important producer.VermiculiteThe vermiculite mine and mill owned by W. R.Grace and Company in Lincoln County produces

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 44Montana Production by County(Thousands) ,„„„„„ ,..„ Minerals produced in 1980County 1979 1980in order of valueBeaverhead $964 $1,119 Silver, stone, sand and gravel, gold, lead, zinc,BieHorn W 567copper.Sand and gravel, stoneBroadwaterIIII"I"III W 41 Gold, silver,~rnrhon4.061 Clays, stone. sand and gravel.1Carter^W W ClaysC^ade W W Sand and gravel, stone.chout«au:::_::::::::: 162 w doDaniels" I IIIIIIIIIIII 8 28 Sand and gravel.Dawson 449 618 Do.DeerLodee -I_ -- 8,178 9,021 Lime, stone, sand and gravel, clays.Fereus- I- -I-- 1.123 W Gypsum, sand and gravel, stone.Flathead" "'__II_-I--- 3.997 2,778 Sand and gravel, stone.Gallatin 20.681 17,736 Cement, stone, sand and gravel, clays.Garfield __I I_--I-- 2Glacier "Granite ^_!.^_IIIIIIIII 7,625 6,646 Silver, copper, gold, stone, lead.I W Sand and gravel.Hill 19Jefferson I-- 15,024 18,900 Cement, stone, silver, sand and gravel, gold,tungsten.Judith BasinLai^g W Wlead, zinc, clays, copper,Gypsum^Sand and gravel, peat.Lewi8andClark_::i_I--- 1.077 1,718 Sand and gravel, stone.Liberty _- Sand and gravel.Lincoln II-I_ W W Sand and gravel, vermiculita.Madisonllllllllllllll 6.883 12,f83 Talc, gold, silver, lead, sand and gravel.Meaeher II - W 4 Gold.Mineral I I- 612 W Silver, sand and gravel, gold, lead, copper,stone.Missoula W W Barite, stone, sand and gravelMusselshell _~ I I- 42 48 Sand and gravel.Park I"_ W 621 Silver, sand and gravel, stone, copper, lead.Petroleum I_'III 31 35 Sand and gravel.Phillips ____ 3 29.908 Gold, clays, silver, sand and gravel.Pondera _I__I__ Sand and gravel, stone.Po^gll l_l W W Phosphate rock, sand and gravel, copper, gold.stone, silver.Ravalli 765 W Sand and gravel, peat, stone.Richland _' III W W Lime, sand and gravel.Rosebud W 345 Sand and gravel, stone.Sanders I __ I . I W W Antimony.Sheridan 57 48 Sand and gravel.Silver Bow 178.215 126.035 Copper, silver, gold, sand and gravel.Stillwat«r W W Sand and gravel.Sweet Grass 123 _-Teton __ -- 9 Stone.Toole 146 168 Sand and gravel.Valley W W Clays, sand and gravelWibaux _I_ _~IIII 8 9 Sand and gravelYellowstone ______ W W Sand and gravel, lime, clays.Undistributed* 40.915 50.959ToUl' 291.287 279,550W Withheld to avoid disclosing company proprietary data; included with "Undistributed."'Blaine, Fallon, Powder River, Prairie, Roosevelt, Treasure, and Wheatland Counties and Yellowstone National Parkare not listed because no nonfuel mineral production was reported'Includes stone (1979) that cannot be assigned to specific counties, gem stones, and values indicated by symbol W.'Data may not add to totals shown because of independent rounding.Source: U.S. BLMmost of the vermiculite in the United States. Much ofthis vermiculite is used in building construction andthe slowdown in this industry caused serious declinesin vermiculite production during 1982. The reserves,however, are large and the mine will continue tooperate for many years.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 45ExplorationUnder Montana's Metal Mine Reclamation Act,also known as the Hard-Rock Act, companies andindividuals engaged in mineral exploration that mightdamage surface resources must obtain an explorationlicense from the Department of State Lands. Therequirements for a license include posting a bond toensure the reclamation of any surface disturbances. InJune 1982, 61 companies had licenses in 24 countiesfor about 150 projects.A number of these licenses are for expansions ofexisting mines. Others relate to new projects in areashistorically associated with mineral development.Projects in relatively new areas include copper/silverexploration in Lincoln and Sanders counties, PGMand Anaconda projects in Stillwater and Sweetgrasscounties, and molybdenum exploration in Cascadeand Beaverhead counties.Small Miner ExclusionSmall hard-rock (including placer) miners, thosewho do not exceed the 36,500 ton annual minimum ordisturb more than five acres at one time, are notrequired to filefor permits, although they must obtaina Small Miner Exclusion from the Department ofState Lands. This exempts the holder from the sitingand reclamation standards that apply to larger mines.Small miners are still subject to state water qualitylaws, and they must obtain discharge permits from theDepartment of Health and Environmental Science'sWater Quality Bureau (WQB) if they plan todischarge effluent into state waters. The WQB issuesspecial permits for the use of suction dredges andother placer mining equipment that discharge intosurface waters; most of these permits are held bysmall miners. These permits prohibit an increase indownstream turbidity and prescribe self-monitoringrequirements for the mine operators. As of August1982, approximately 90 such permits were in force.ReclamationMontana's Hard-Rock Act requires that mines thatextract more than 36,500 tons of ore in a calendaryear or disturb more than five acres must obtain anoperating permit. The permit application must includedetailed plans of operation and reclamation and otherpertinent information. The act allows denials ofpermits only in cases where federal or state air orwater quality standards would be violated, or whereadequate reclamation would be impossible.The Hard-Rock Act requires that land disturbed bymining be reclaimed to a useful condition, althoughnot necessarily to the same use as existed prior tomining. Provisions must be made for the protectionof human and animal safety and discharges of"objectionable effluent" from the mine site must beprevented. Revegetation is required to the extent thatit is appropriate to the needs of the reclaimed landuse.The law also requires the posting of a performancebond by the applicant. The amount of the bond (atleast $250/ acre) is calculated to provide the necessaryfunding for reclamation if the operator should fail tomeet the terms of the permit.State reclamation laws authorize the state to forfeitits jurisdiction over reclamation on federal lands whenfederal standards are more stringent than applicablestate laws. Presently all of Montana's hard-rock andopencut reclamation laws are more stringent thancorresponding federal statutes. While DSL is seekinggreater cooperation with federal agencies onreclamation issues, it expects to remain the leadagency in mined-land reclamation in the state.Opencut MiningThe extraction of minerals under the state'sOpencut Mining Act requires a contract with DSL'sOpencut Mining Bureau when more than 10,000 cubicyards per year will be extracted. The Opencut Actprovides standards of operation and reclamation.Contractual obligations include the posting of aperformance bond equivalent to the estimated cost ofreclamation, except where the applicant is agovernment entity.Reclamation under the Opencut Mining Act doesnot call for the re-establishment of originaltopography or land use. The restoration of originaltopography is considered impractical for manyopencut operations because most of the materialextracted is utilized, leaving little overburden forbackfill.A common criticism of the original Opencut MiningAct was that the Department of State Lands had noauthority to impose sanctions against violators.Responsibility for enforcement was given to countyprosecutors, who often were unenthusiastic aboutpursuing such cases. This situation changed in 1981when DSL was given the authority to prescribe civilpenalties for violations of the act.Presently, Department of State Lands' 1,552Opencut Mining and Reclamation contracts cover27,615 acres in 55 Montana counties. Not all of theseare active at any one time and the reclamation

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Pagecontracted for often occurs simultaneously withmineral extraction. At any one time, a typical miningoperation may have only a small portion of itscontracted acreage in an unreclaimed state.Of all the opencut contracts held by DSL, twothirdsare with either county governments or theMontana Department of Highways to mine aggregatefor road building.Statewide, a high percentage of the contractedopencut acreage belongs to a few large operations.Fifteen contracts involving over 100 acres (many forbentonite mines) account for about 64 percent of thetotal permitted acreage in the state. Most of thisacreage is in Blaine, Carbon, Carter, Phillips,Rosebud, Treasure, and Valley counties.Abandoned MinesThe reclamation of orphan mines abandoned or leftinoperative before the enactment of the Hard-Rockand Opencut acts is not required. This includes anumber of abandoned underground and placer mines.In 1966, the U. S. Bureau of Mines estimated thatthere were 16,000 or more abandoned or inactiveunderground mines in the western U.S.The DHES and DSL are presently assessing anumber of areas where drainage and erosion problemscaused by abandoned mines are severe (see waterquality chapter). The scarcity of funding is thelimiting factor in attempting to deal with the problemsassociated with abandoned mines. In a case when anabandoned mine is the site of redevelopment, theDHES does have authority to require compliance withwater quality statutes.Locating the owner of an abandoned mine isdifficult.Further, once located, the owner may nothave the financial resources to reclaim such a site.Because of these factors, the DHES has never forcedthe owner of a pre-law abandoned mine to complywith state water quality standards.No funding mechanism outside of the FederalAbandoned Mine Land program exists for theseabandoned mines. The same holds true for mines notclassified as hard-rock. Abandoned rock quarries andsand and gravel pits dot the state, and abandonedbentonite pits are a common feature in some areas.The Federal Surface Mining Control andReclamation Act of 1977 contains an importantprovision relating to abandoned mine lands. It directsthat a fee be collected for each ton of coal produced.Montana's subbituminous coal is assessed at 35 centsper ton.Fifty percent of this fund is earmarked for thereclamation of abandoned mines under a state-runAbandoned Mine Land (AML) program. In Montana,the Department of State Lands administers thisprogram.The goal of the AML program is to reclaim miningproperties abandoned prior to the enactment offederal or state reclamation laws. The primary focusof this program is to reclaim abandoned coal mines,but there is also a provision for the use of some ofthis money to reclaim hard-rock mines and othermined lands that present a hazard to public health orsafety.The DSL has conducted extensive research incooperation with the Montana Department of NaturalResources and Conservation and other state andfederal agencies. This has resulted in a statewide Ustof problem abandoned mines. Reclamation work oncoal mine areas under this program is resulting insuccessful land and water rehabilitation.The list of hard-rock AML sites includes severalthat are causing water quality problems of statewidesignificance. These adits, millsites and tailings arecausing acid drainage, metal contamination andsedimentation in state waters.Recognizing the severit)of these non-coal abandoned hard-rock mine impacts,the AML Bureau has initiated baseline andengineering studies on several sites. In 1982, theMontana AML budget proposal of more than $8.6million included about $3.3 million for work at fiveimportant hard-rock sites in Jefferson, Beaverhead,Silver Bow and Park counties.While there was approximately $20 million in theMontana AML fund as of July 1982, monies leftunspent in the fund for a period of three years revertto the Office of Surface Mining. Because of this, andbecause the program is authorized for only fifteenyears, DSL considers a rapid resolution of thisdisagreement to be very important to the success ofthe AML program. Meanwhile, the AML Bureau iscontinuing to monitor these sites.Surface DisturbanceThe surface disturbance of land is an importantimpact of mining. Itcreates large areas of visuallydispleasing landscapes and restricts the area'susefulness for other activities.But the amount of landdisturbed is only generally indicative of the potentialfor damage to other resources. Sometimes, dependingon the mineral involved and on variables such astopography and precipitation, mines with relativelyminor areas of surface disturbance may have greatimpacts on water, air or soil.Department of State Lands data indicate that about50,000 acres statewide may be disturbed by miners

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 47and mineral processors under DSL hard-rockoperating permits, opencut contracts and small minerexclusion statements. These figures cannot be taken asa dependable indication of actual surface occupancy.Opencut operators, in particular, often reclaim landsimultaneously with mining elsewhere. Someoperations may never disturb all of their allowedacreage, and many small miners probably never reachthe five-acre limit of their Small Miner ExclusionStatement. Conversely, surface disturbances predatingthe state's reclamation laws are important inmany western Montana mining districts and manybentonite areas of eastern Montana.The U. S. Bureau of Mines indicates that from 1930to1980, the nonfuel mineral industry directly utilized48,525 surface acres in Montana. As the USBM pointsout, this is a small area in comparison to other landuses. The total area reported for Montana (includingcoal mining commitments) amounts to only .07percent of Montana's land area; the national figure is.25 percent. These data do not include all haul roads,rail lines,or water impoundments, which represent asignificant portion of the total mine-associatedcommitment of land. As part of the same study, theUSBM compiled information on reclaimed land areafor various commodities. Of this disturbed area, 28.6percent has been classified reclaimed in Montana.This is relatively low compared to a 47.4 percentfigure nationwide. It might reflect the fact that theminerals that have historically accounted for much ofMontana's mining (copper, sand and gravel andphosphate) have relatively low rates of reclamation.As indicated by the USBM, the relatively slow rate ofmined land reclamation associated with large metalmines is in part due to a great longevity for theseoperations. Additionally, simultaneous reclamation, asoften practiced in coal mining, is seldom practiced inhard-rock mining.State-ownedMineralsThe Montana Board of Land Commissioners hasauthority to lease metalliferous and other nonmetallicminerals that are under state-owned lands.Nonmetallic mineral leases are typically granted for aninitial period of ten years, after which the board mayextend the lease.Mineral leases can be revoked at anytime for failure to protect surface resources or toreclaim the land.Mineral leases require the payment of rentals androyalties.Rentals are assessed on a per acre basis(usually $1.50 per acre) and must be paid annuallywhether or not ore is actually mined. Royalties arecharged on the net return from leased mineraldeposits. State law allows for royalties of between 5and 8 percent, although currently all nonmetallic statemineral leases are assessed at the 5 percent rate.Only four of the 185 leases in effect wereconsidered active in 1981-82; the large majority wereinactive due to poor markets or speculative holding ofleases for resale.Income to the state from rentals and royalties goesinto various state trust funds. The current nonmetallicmineral leases are all on lands that support the schooltrust fund, with the exception of one Department ofInstitutions lease.Stillwater ComplexIn August 1982, the Anaconda Minerals Companyapplied for an operating permit from the Departmentof State Lands for a platinum/palladium mine andmill complex near Nye in Stillwater County. Thisapplication was submitted after several years ofexploration and assessment work and issimilar to aproject being planned by Stillwater PGM Resources.The target of these projects is the Stillwater complex,an ancient body of igneous rock containing depositsof chromium, nickel and copper, as well as platinumand palladium. The Stillwater complex extends almostthirty miles along the northeastern edge of theBeartooth Mountains.Anaconda's proposal includes an underground mineand a mill designed to process about 1,000 tons of oreper day. Twenty-five acres of the proposed mine sitelies on unpatented claims in the Custer NationalForest with the remainder on private land.The extent of future development in the Stillwatercomplex is uncertain since the demand for platinumand palladium has been closely linked to theautomobile industry (these two metals are used incatalytic converters). The auto industry slowdown inthe early eighties as well as large imports of foreignplatinum have resulted in relatively low prices. But acooperative application from Chevron, Johns-Manville and Anaconda Company for the StillwaterMining Project is expected by the end of 1983.In the past, the chromium deposits of the Stillwatercomplex have been mined under federally subsidizedprograms to build up U. S. stockpiles of strategicminerals. While significant chromium resourcesremain in the area, mining of chromium will probablybe uneconomic in the near future.While these deposits are of relatively low quality,these metals are of extreme industrial importance andoccur rarely in the United States. Any effort to

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 48subsidize national independence in the production ofthese commodities would greatly increase theprobability of Stillwater complex mineraldevelopment.Heap LeachingCyanide heap leaching of gold and silver is arelatively new development that has caused muchconcern in the state due to cyanide's toxicity.Although cyanide-based extraction itself is not new,open-air leaching, as is practiced at the Zortman andLandusky mines, has become popular recently asrising precious metal prices have enhanced theprofitability of mining low-grade ores andreprocessing previously mined ores. The largestfacility in the state is at Zortman, designed to leachone million tons of ore per year (and scheduled for amajor expansion).Gold and silver-bearing ore is mined, hauled to theleach site, and placed upon elevated "pads." Asodium cyanide solution is then sprinkled over the topof the pad, usually with an irrigation-type system.Sodium cyanide dissolves the gold and silver, and thesolution percolates through to a drainage system,which leads into a "pregnant pond." From there, thesolution moves to another tank where additionalchemicals precipitate the gold and silver.Concern about heap leaching centers aroundpotential contamination of surface and/or groundwaters by the leachate, which can be rich in sodium,calcium cyanide and other metals. Structural failuresof the solution ponds and seepage from the leach pador collection ponds can result in toxic concentrationsof these substances in local water supplies. Two suchinstances have occurred in Montana, both atMarysville. The seeps have resulted in fish killsSilver Creek.In the event of an inadvertent discharge, however,the released cyanide rapidly oxidizes and is reduced toa less toxic compound. Nonetheless, any largedischarge from a leaching operation could potentiallyhave a serious impact on the nearby water.To minimize the hazards, heap leaching operatorsmust undertake measures designed to prevent leakageinto the water table, and ensure that collection pondsare capable of containing runoff from heavy rainfallor snowmelt. The DHES requires leaching operatorsto inform the Water Quality Bureau of their activities.The department may also require groundwatermonitoring by the operators. Smaller operations,however, may not be required to monitor forgroundwater leakage when they are in areas ofunsusceptible aquifers.inTwo of the three largest gold and silver mines in thestate—the Zortman and Landusky mines in PhillipsCounty—both use the heap leaching method of oreprocessing. The third. Placer Amex's Golden SunlightMine in Jefferson County, does not. Amex's planscall for conventional cyanide leaching with cyanidebearingtailings disposal in a 160-acre tailings pond.Placer Amex will recycle cyanide by pumpingprocessing solutions from the pond back into themill's leaching containers.Heap leaching remains a particularly attractivemethod for recovering gold from old tailings pilescontaining previously uneconomical low-grade ores. In1981 at least 14 plants in Montana used or wereplanning to use the process. Only a few of theseoperated during 1982 because of depressed preciousmetal prices. Significant increases in future gold priceswill undoubtedly revitalize many of these operations,especially in historic districts with large reserves oflow-grade ore.Oil ShaleThe Heath formation, an oil shale of Mississippianage, is distributed over more than 2,700 square milesin central Montana. The Heath formation containspotentially valuable deposits of vanadium, selenium,nickel, zinc and molybdenum, as well as reserves ofhydrocarbons. In 1981, the U. S. Geological Surveyestimated these deposits to be four times as large asColorado's Green River oil shale. As a result, a flurryof claims were filed, carving up much of the area.Uncertainty arose over the legal status of such claims,since oil shale is not locatable (claimants do not ownthe minerals, but lease the deposits from the federalgovernment). But the potentially valuable metalswithin the shale have enabled claimants to file onmetalliferous ores. So far, claims cover about 15,000acres, and they have not been ruled invalid.The Montana Bureau of Mines and Geologyconsiders such claims to be premature. Levels ofavailable hydrocarbons in the shales vary and,although the richest zones may be economicallyattractive to synfuel developers, the extent of theseareas remains unknown. MBMG believes that nickel isthe most likely commodity the Heath formation willproduce.Potentially attractive to developers are the largeareas amenable to surface mining. Desborough et alalso suggested in 1981 that solution extraction ofhydrocarbons and metals by steam injection might befeasible in the Heath. However, it is likely that therock is too impermeable for such techniques.Under certain economic conditions, large areas of

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 49the Heath formation might become commerciallyviable for development. The MBMG and the USGScooperated on field studies of the Heath in 1982.Mapping and sample analyses will provide a betterdetermination of the distribution of hydrocarbon andmetal values in these shales.Troy-area MiningThe largest new copper/silver mine in the state isASARCO's development in Lincoln County. Knownas the Troy mine, this facility is operating near itscapacity of 8,500 tons of ore per day. The Troy mineemploys over 300 people in Lincoln County, whichhas one of the highest unemployment levels in thestate. The mine is expected to operate about 16 years.In addition to this mine, ASARCO has conductedcore drilling and other testing at its Chicago Peakclaim in the area. Another company, U. S. Borax, hascarried out similar exploration on claims immediatelyeast and west of the Chicago Peak claim. All of theseactivities are wholly or partially within the CabinetMountains Wilderness.Exploration by these and a number of othercompanies has occurred to the west, in or adjacent tothe proposed Scotchman's Peak Wilderness Area, andalso in various other parts of the Kootenai NationalForest, and in northern Lolo National Forest in theVermillion River area.ASARCO's Chicago Peak deposit and the adjoiningU. S. Borax blocks are thought to be very similar tothe Troy mine, which has continued operations duringa period of exceptionally poor economic conditionsfor copper. Under the provisions of the 1964Wilderness Preservation Act, the companies in thearea must soon make decisions on futuredevelopments. Many people believe that ASARCO islikely to propose a mine at Chicago Peak in the nearfuture. Exploration programs in other areas are lessadvanced than the Cabinet Wilderness projects.Any mines developed in these deposits will probablyresemble the Troy mine: large-volume undergroundmines with associated crushing and flotation mills andtailing ponds.ResourcesDesborough, G.A. el at, "Metalliferous Oil Shales in CentralMontana and Northeastern Nevada," U.S. GeologicalSurvey report, 1981.Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Directory of MontanaMining Enterprises; Mining Codes of Montana; otherpublications, Butte, various dates.Montana Dept. of State Lands, Montana's AbandonedMine Land Reclamation Plan, Helena, 1980.U.S.. Bureau of Land Management, Bentonite Mine LandReclamation in the Northern Great Plains, Washington,D.C., 1981.U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, 1981; LandUtilization and Reclamation in the Mining Industry,1930-1980, Washington, D.C., 1982.U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Effects of Surface MiningOther than Coal, Washington, D.C., 1980.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 50COALThe United States possesses 27 percent of theearth's known coal resources. According to the U.S.Geological Survey, the total identified coal resource inthe United States is about 1.7 trillion tons, of which285 billion tons are recoverable under existingtechnologies. Current domestic coal production nowstands at 700 million tons per year, leaving the UnitedStates, under any likely consumption scenario, withenough coal to last at least 100 years.Geographically, U.S. coal resources are evenlydivided between eastern and western coal provinces.Western coals tend to be lower in sulfur content,making them cleaner burning, but they are also lowerin heat value. Thus, while 54 percent of domestic coalby weight is found west of the Mississippi, westerncoals contain only 30 percent of the total energy valueof U.S. coals.Montana possesses the largest recoverable coalreserve in the U.S. and ranks second in total coalresources among all coal-producing states. Accordingto the U.S. Bureau of Mines classification system,Montana coals form part of the Fort Union andPowder River Basin coal regions of the NorthernGreat Plains Coal Province. Fort Union coal islignite, and its low heat value (averaging 6,700 Btuper pound) makes its rail shipping uneconomical.Thus 97 percent of North Dakota's coal production isconsumed at minemouth power plants. The PowderRiver Basin coal of Montana and Wyoming is subbituminousin rank (8,500-9,500 Btu per pound) andtherefore it is shippable to out-of-state markets.Powder River Basin coals are typified by extremelythick seams, thin overburden and low mining andreclamation costs. Montana and Wyoming togetherpossess 40 percent of the demonstrated coal reservesin the U.S. Strippable reserves in the Powder RiverBasin amount to 57.5 billion tons, of which morethan 1 1 billion are committed to mining companiesunder existing federal leases.Markets forNGP CoalInterest in Northern Great Plains coals (NGP)intensified after passage of the federal Clean Air Actin 1969 and the subsequent enforcement of StateImplementation Plans (SIP) and New Source PerformanceStandards (NSPS) through 1976. Under early

6N6RGV R€SOURC€S RND FRCIUTICS OF mONTRnnPlont[ Hydroelectric•«Thermoelectric'Substation /Sujilch/ordTransmission Lines500 kV230 kV161 kV115 kV100 kVll^ Oil FieldIIP Cos FieldB Oil Refinery^ Gos Plonl_PipelinesCoalCrudeRefinednaturolFieldsOilProductsGos^^B Bituminous^^1 Sub- BituminousLignite^1* Oil Shale fireoX Relive Cool mine

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 51Demonstrated Reserve Base (Billions ot Tons)Rank

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 51Demonstrated Reserve Base (Billions of Tons)nk

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 521979 Deliveries of NGP Coal (Thousands of Tons)

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 53Montana Coal Production; 1979-1983CountyName of Company Name of Mine & Town1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Decker Coal CompanyEast Decker MineBig Horn Co.Decker5,897.433 5,576,607 5,350,113 4,914,970 5,040,018Decker Coal CompanyWest Decker MineBig Horn Co.Decker7.067.374 5.616.695 5.331.626 4.884.920 5,308.799Knife River Coal Co.Savage Strip MineRichland Co.Savage305,143 305,578 204,492 171,556 206,543Long Construction Co.Rosebud MineRosebud Co.11,725,558 10,401,972 10,352,966 9,424.857 9.544.062ColstripMorrison-Knudsen Co., Inc.Absaloka MineBig Horn Co.Hardin4.947,608 4,905,262 4,450,296 4,158,578 3,868,844P & M Coal CompanyP M Surface StripMusselshell Co.Roundup11, 7,404 15,141 11,655Peabody Coal CompanyBig Sky MineRosebud Co.2,964,359 3,193,570 2,891,428 2,571,861ColstripSpring Creek Coal Co.(NERCO)Storm King Coal Mining Co.(Divide Coal Co.Spring Creek MineStorm King MineBig Horn Co.DeckerMusselshell Co.Roundup95,634 4,368,885 1,352,181 2,102,6068,571 8,165 8,062 5,896mid-1982)Coal Creek Mining Co.Coal Creek MinePowder River Co.Ashland64,398 64,142 16.608Beartooth Coal Co.Brophy H2 Mine(Underground)Carbon Co.Red LodgeTotal Coal Tonnage Production by Year29,957,586 33,331,659 27,838,301 28,660,284Source: Dept. of Labor and IndustryNOP coal, rail costs have risen dramatically since1965. At current rates of increase (4 percent per year),coal freight rates will double every 18 years.Moreover, some analysts have predicted a shortage ofrail capacity for Powder River Basin coal by 1990.These facts and expectations have led someobservers to conclude that coal slurry lines may be aneconomical alternative to unit trains, moving as muchas 125 million tpy by 1990 in the U.S. Some of themore viable current proposals for coal slurry linesappear to originate in the West: Arizona to Nevada(Allen-Warner Energy Systems), Wyoming to Texas(the Wytex Project), and Wyoming to Arkansas,Oklahoma and Louisiana (Energy TransportationSystems, Inc.).One study suggested that while slurry lines willprobably not affect the rate of coal development on anational level, slurry lines originating in western coalregions might greatly expand the market area for lowcostwestern coals. Viewed from this perspective,slurry lines may be the solution to a sluggish marketfor NOP coal by either expanding the NOP coalmarket or making NGP coal more economical withinthe existing market area. One question facing policymakers in the Northern Great Plains states should bewhether they are willing to expand the market for theregion's coal by giving up some water for coal slurry.Despite frequent overestimates of NGP coal production,it must be recognized that Montana, Wyomingand North Dakota have experiencedunprecedented levels of coal production since 1970.Given the enormous extent of the Fort Union andPowder River Basin coal regions and the growingdemand for low-sulfur Western coal, residents of theNorthern Great Plains can expect to see an approximatedoubling of coal production capacity by 1990.The Office of Technology Assessment predicts thatMontana mine capacity will grow by 15 million tpy in1986, and by 32 million tpy in 1990. The table belowsummarizes expected mining capacity increases inMontana during the next decade, although the highsodium content of western coal may counter thistrend.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 54Expected Capacity Increases in IVlontana(Millions of Tons)GroundwaterMineCapacity*1986Capacity'1991Capacity*After 1991Montco(Tongue River)2.0Young's CreekCoal CreekBull MountainCX Ranch(ConsolidationCoal)CX Ranch(Peter Kiewit)Absoloka IITanner Creek(CrowReservation)Tongue River IITongue River IIIDominyBear Tooth

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 55Westmoreland Coal Company's Absaloka Mine intoan area of freshwater seeps and springs has led to theselective denial of the expansion permit until groundwatermonitoring provides a better understanding ofhydrology in the mining area. While the coal seams atthe Absaloka Mine are not highly productive aquifers,the quality of the water makes the coal seams andoverburden the source of the most desirable water inthe area.Since Westmoreland began operations in1974, hydrological monitoring has not revealed seriousinterruptions in the groundwater recharge capacity.Levels in observation wells have not declined, and theeffects of mining so far appear to be negligible.Western Energy Company's Rosebud Mine, in productionsince 1924, is the oldest operating mine inMontana, although it was shut down in the 1950s. By1982, 10,000 acres had been disturbed. Groundwatermonitoring has revealed that Rosebud spoils cantransmit water at least as effectively as the undisturbedaquifers; however, some deterioration in waterquality has been detected. Since water quality changescontinually in the mined area, for reasons that remainunknown, it is not yet possible to conclude thatmining has increased salinity or affected othercharacteristics.At the West Decker Mine in the upper TongueRiver Valley, hydrological impacts have been morepronounced. Overburden there contains large amountsof sodium, a natural condition that prevailsthroughout the Tongue River Valley. In some places,bicarbonate oversaturates the groundwater, causingthe water to resemble artificially carbonated sodawater. Water quality tests at the West Decker spoilshave shown high levels of dissolved solids (exceeding6,000 mg/1), with sulfate and sodium as the majorconstituents. In addition, water levels around the minehave declined much more than at other Montana surfacemines. Declines of 10 feet have been recorded 2miles west of the active pit, and declines up to 40 feethave been recorded nearer the pit. These data suggestthat regulatory agencies will examine future TongueRiver mining applications very carefully for potentialhydrological impacts. In 1982, the Montana Departmentof State Lands rejected a petition by the NorthernPlains Resource Council to declare the lowerTongue River Valley unsuitable for mining under theunsuitability criteria of the Surface Mining Act. Thisaction by NPRC is evidence of local concern withmining of the sodic soils of the Tongue River Valleyand the potential there for long-term and perhaps irreversibleimpacts partly caused by groundwaterdisturbances.Like many aspects of mined land reclamation, themitigation of groundwater impacts is a new and evolvingfield of research. Data are now being collected atthe 26 large surface mines operating in the Fort Unionand Powder River Basin coal regions, but broad conclusionscannot yet be stated. Groundwater impacts.like groundwater quality, vary greatly from site tosite. The potential for serious long-term impacts existsat some mining areas in these coal regions— a factrecognized in the Surface Mining Act.The potential for dissolved salts to inhibit plantgrowth over large revegetated areas also warrants concernby reclamation specialists and regulators.Excessive levels of sodium— a condition that occurs insome Montana coal lands— is a concern because whenthe sodium salts cause the swelling of clay materials,the movement of water and air into the plant rootzone is impeded. This irreversible condition, whichalso occurs naturally, may take years to develop. Itextremely harmful to crop production.Another major concern is that the cumulative effectsof water table lowering may cause serious problemsin areas with concentrated mining activities.the past, regulatory agencies based most of their permittingdecisions on riie merits of individual applications,rather than looking at cumulative impacts fornumerous mines in a given area. Presently, regulatoryagencies prepare a cumulative impact analysis for eachmining proposal. Unfortunately, there are no standarizedreclamation designs to minimize groundwaterquality or quantity impacts. The law, however, is explicitin this regard: the likelihood of serious reductionsin groundwater quality or quantity may allowthe denial of a permit to mine and render certaincritical areas unsuitable for mining.Alluvial Valley FloorsUnder the Surface Mining Control and ReclamationAct, alluvial valley floors in the West are affordedspecial protection because of their hydrological andagricultural importance. Settlement in the Westhistorically occurred along river and stream valleyswhere rich alluvial soils and adequate surface watermade crop production possible. An important componentin the passage of SMCRA was the recognitionby Congress that in many of the important cattlelands of the West, ranching "...could not survivewithout hay production from the naturally subirrigatedand flood-irrigated meadows located on thealluvial valley floors." The lands in the Powder RiverBasin of Montana and Wyoming were specificallycited as areas in which alluvial valley floors must beprotected.As defined in the SMCRA, alluvial valley floors(AVF) are those stream valleys that: are underlain byunconsolidated sand, silt, gravel and clay; have astream flowing through them and a generally flatvalley floor topography; and are important toagriculture. However, much confusion has arisen overthese seemingly simple definitions. Several studiesInis

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 56have been undertaken to determine the extent of AVFthat might be protected under the law's provisions.AVF studiesUnder SMCRA, mining on an agriculturally importantAVF can be absolutely prohibited if it will "...interrupt,discontinue, or preclude farming." Moreover,mining can be prohibited if it would damage thehydrological systems that supply water for localagriculture. On a less agriculturally important AVFwhere mining is not absolutely prohibited, reclamationstandards specify, among other things, that miningmust be done to minimize disturbances to the prevailinghydrologic balance by preserving "...the essentialhydrologic functions of alluvial valley floors." Thelatter is a legal provision unique to alluvial valleyfloors.Recent studies suggest that only 5 percent of

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 57recoverable western coal will be affected by AVF provisions,with only 1 percent subjected to the absoluteprohibition of mining. A 1981 Office of TechnologyAssessment report offered the following conclusionsconcerning AVF restrictions on federal coal lands:—Only one stream valley in the West (SquirrelCreek Valley in Montana) has been identified asan AVF where mining might be absolutely prohibitedin a portion of the valley.—The AVF issue has the potential to affectmore tonnage of recoverable coal than any otherenvironmental issue; however, no adverse productioneffects are expected until after 1991.—Most federal leaseblocks in the Powder RiverBasin are expected to include some areasdesignated as alluvial valley floors.—Non-federal coal reserves are more prone toAVF determinations because of the concentrationof non-federal coal in river valleys wherehomesteading historically occurred.In Montana, the Squirrel Creek property in theTongue River Valley has been identified as an alluvialvalley floor, parts of which are significant to farming.Three coal companies—Rosebud Coal Sales, ConsolidationCoal and Kiewit Mining and Engineering—ownor lease federal and non-federal propertiesin the area drained by Squirrel Creek. Partly becauseSquirrel Creek has been designated a significant AVF,Consolidated Coal's plans to mine the CX Ranch areaare now uncertain; it is Hkely that 100 million tons offederal and non-federal reserves below the valley floorwill not be mined.Of the 21 new federal-lease mines now proposed inthe Powder River Basin, 17 are potentially affected byAVF provisions. In terms of coal tonnages, AVFdesignations could affect mining and reclamation proceduresfor 219 milHon tons of the 5billion tonreserve at these proposed mines. The following tablesummarizes the potential for alluvial valley floordeterminations at the proposed federal mines.It thus appears that while AVF designations mightaffect mining and reclamation plans at most PowderRiver Basin mines, in practically no areas will miningbe prohibited, and total tonnages affected by stricterthan normal reclamation requirements will represent asmall percentage (5 percent or less) of the reservesheld at existing and proposed mine sites. Montana,because of its relatively large proportion of nonfederalcoal, may be more prone than Wyoming toAVF designations.ResourcesDuffield, John el al. Projections of Coal Demand from IheNorthern Great Plains Through the Year 2010, U.S. Officeof Surface Mining and the University of Montana, 1982.ICF, Inc., The Potential Energy and Economic Impacts ofCoal Slurry Pipelines, Washington, D.C., 1979; Forecastsand Sensitivity Analysis of Western Coal Production, 1980.Keystone Coal Manual, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1980.National Research Council, Coal Mining and Ground-waterResources in the United States, Washington, D.C., 1981.Office of Technology Assessment, The Direct Use of Coal,Washington, D.C., 1980; Coal Slurry Pipelines, Summary,1980; and An Assessment of Development and ProductionPotential of Federal Coal Leases, 1981.Silverman, Arnold, Montana University Coal DemandStudy, Missoula, 1976.Stobaugh, Robert and D. Yergin, Energy Future: Report ofIhe Energy Project at the Harvard Business School, NewYork, 1979.U.S. Dept. of Energy, The 1980 Biennial Update of Nationaland Regional Production Goals for 1985, 1990, and1995, Washington, D.C., 1981.U.S. Depts. of Energy and Transportation, National EnergyTransportation Study: A Preliminary Report to the President,Washington, D.C., 1980.U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Interior andInsular Affairs, report accompanying the Surface MiningControl and Reclamation Act of 1977, Washington, D.C.,1977.

EQC Eighth Annuai Report - Page 58OIL and GASMontana is the country's 13th leading oil producingstate, although it accounts for less than 1 percent oftotal U. S. production. Petroleum production hasbeen declining gradually over the past decade for thenation as a whole, and production in Montana hasbeen consistent with this trend.Slight production increases in 1981 and 1982reversed this trend in Montana, although oilproduction in 1983 fell slightly. The increases reflecteda burst of drilling activity in 1981 that tapped newsources of petroleum. Exploratory activity in 1983 wasdown sharply from the 1982 level, falling even furtherfrom the record activity in 1981.Although Montana wells produced almost 31million barrels of oil in 1982, the state imported 33million barrels from Canada, North Dakota andWyoming. Imports from Canada rose by almost 4million barrels from 1981 levels; this increase morethan offset a 500 million barrel decrease in importsfrom Wyoming and a 14 thousand barrel drop thatvirtually stopped North Dakota imports. At the sametime, Montana exported over 21to out-of-state markets.million barrels of oilTotal gas production also rose in 1982 to a level of50.9 billion cubic feet. Natural gas production wasdown by 550 million cubic feet, but marketedassociated gas, or gas produced with oil, was up by1.4 billion cubic feet. The associated gas came fromthe deeper pay zones in the Williston Basin. Total gasproduction fell slightly in the first nine months of1983.Montana has five established areas of petroleumand natural gas production. These are the SweetgrassArch-Bearpaw Uplift in northern Montana, the BigSnowy Uplift in central Montana, the Big Horn Basinin southcentral Montana, the Powder River Basin insoutheast Montana and the Williston Basin innortheast Montana. The first four regions usuallyproduce from relatively shallow. Cretaceous-era rocks;the Williston Basin wells are much deeper, going intoPaleozoic geological formations. The 1981 increase inMontana production was largely due to a majorincrease in Williston Basin production, whichaccounted for almost two-thirds of the total. NorthernMontana production also increased moderately in

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page1982 Oil and Gas Activity in IVIontana1978 1979 1980 1981 1982PRODUCTION IN BARRELS:Northern Montana 3,671,322 3,536,296 3,516,807 3,605,207 3,680,043SouthCentral 1,095,737 1.131,798 1,055,105 910,595 806,366Central 3,343,556 3,029,397 2,612,091 2,583,690 1 ,496,895WillistonBasin 15,103,853 16,546,576 17,739,142 19,954,159 21,934,760Powder River Basin 7,252,869 5,713,032 4,660,659 3,759,760 2,999.247TOTAL 30,467,337 29,957,099 29,583,804 30,813,411 30.917,311NUMBER OF PRODUCING WELLS:Northern Montana 2,052 2,089 2,212 2,280 2.455SouthCentral 115 112 124 132 138Central 347 340 358 354 249WillistonBasin 863 886 996 1.080 1,360Powder River Basin 169 165 148 174 212TOTAL 3,546 3,592 3,838 4,020 4,414AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION/WELL:Northern Montana 4.9 4.6 4.3 4.3 4,1SouthCentral 26.1 27.7 23.2 18.9 16.0Central 26.4 24.4 19.9 20.0 16.5WillistonBasin 47.9 51.2 48.7 50.6 44.2Powder River Basin 117.6 94.9 86.0 .59^ 38^STATE AVG 23.5 22.8 21.1 21.0 19.2DEVELOPMENT WELLS DRILLED:Oil Wells 123 120 241 276 263GasWells 223 235 203 133 145Dry Holes 232 182 206 188 120Service Wells __ _12TOTAL 578 537 650 597 547EXPLORATORY WELLS DRILLED:Oil Wells 21 35 30 126 64GasWells 15 20 12 85 46Dry Holes 179 211 260 341 248TOTAL 215 266 302 552 358TOTAL WELLS DRILLED 793 803 952 1,149 905TOTAL FOOTAGE DRILLED 2,968,842 3,147,341 4,032,032 5,797,770 4,342,410AVERAGE FOOTAGE DRILLED 3,744 3,919 4,235 5,046 4,798Source: Board of Oil and Gas Conservation

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 601981, while the other three regions continued todecline.Western Montana is currently experiencing its firstcontact with oil and gas activity along the"Overthrust Belt," a strip of land about 30 mileswide just east of the Continental Divide which runsthe length of the state. As of yet, no oil has beendiscovered in this area, but exploration is continuing.ResourcesMontana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, AnnualReview for the Year 1982, Helena. 1983; reports frompreceding years, various dates.U.S. Bureau of Mines, Minerals Yearbook, Washington,D.C.. 1981.

RENEWABLE ENERGYEQC Eighth Annuul Report - Page 61Montana is blessed with a wide variety of renewableenergy resources including solar, wind, hydropower,biomass and geothermal energy. A growing number ofMontanans are installing an assortment of systems touse these energy forms for heat and powerproduction.Renewable energy resources are unevenly distributedaround the state. For example, energy potential variesin different areas of the state. The extreme southwestcorner of Montana, around Dillon, enjoys the highestsolar potential, followed by the southeastern and thenthe northeastern corners. The extreme northwest hasthe lowest average daily solar radiation, about 62percent of Dillon's. These averages are based on sixyears of measurements of solar radiation, orinsolation, at 60 stations across Montana. Themeasurement is part of the Solar InsolationMeasurement (SIMM) program conducted by theMontana Department of Natural Resources andConservation through its Renewable Energy andConservation Program. The SIMM networkconstitutes the most thorough solar data base in thecountry, and has been used as a model by other stateand federal agencies.Wind is another renewable resource used inMontana. Wind generators were a frequent sight inrural Montana prior to the availability of low-costelectricity from rural electric cooperatives. Today,with rising energy costs, wind is enjoying renewedinterest. It can be used to generate electricity or toperform mechanical work, such as pumping water atremote stockwells. Although wind power can seldomcompete economically with conventional, large-scalehydropower, the two technologies complement eachother well. When the wind is blowing, wind turbinescan be used to generate electricity, allowing waterreserves to be kept for release during low windperiods.Wind power is extremely site-specific. Windpotential is generally good along the eastern slope ofthe Rockies, although topographic features that createstrong wind tunnels can be found in several locationsacross the state. The most economically feasible useof wind, given the current surplus of electricity in thenorthwest, is in remote, off-grid applications wherethe cost of bringing in conventional electricity isprohibitive. The Department of Natural Resources hasconducted measurements at fifty sites across the state.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 62Average Daily Solar Radiation: Oct.-April (kwh/m^)ISource: Montana Solar Data Manualand is in the process of publishing the results in itsMontana Wind Energy Atlas.Hydropower has been used as a source of energyfor thousands of years. Today there are several largehydroelectric dams in the state, and many potentialsmall-scale hydropower sites. Western Montana hasan abundance of untapped mountain streams thatcould be used as sources of power. Althoughenvironmental impacts of small-scale hydropower canbe minimized with proper planning, they cannot beignored. In most hydro systems, a dam is constructedwhich temporarily interrupts streamflow, raises thewater table above the dam, and lowers the water tablebelow. A dam can impede fish movement and causesilt deposits.Montana's agricultural land and forests contain awealth of biomass that can potentially be converted touseful energy forms. Crop residues, marginal crops,wood wastes and animal manure can be used togenerate alcohol fuels and methane gas, and researchis being done on the use of oil cropseeds in dieseladditives and substitutes. Wood has become a verypopular home heating fuel in Montana. However, airpollution caused by wood smoke is a growingproblem, especially in the state's populated mountainvalleys (see Air Quality Section).There is widespread geothermal potentialthroughout Montana. Numerous hot springs can befound throughout the state, especially in southwesternMontana. The Madison aquifer underlying most ofeastern Montana offers great potential for lowtemperaturespace heating applications, while hightemperaturesprings and wells near Ennis, Bozemanand Poplar hold potential for the generation ofelectricity.The DNRC is currently attempting to inventorysome of the state's renewable energy resourcesthrough its Montana Sustainable Energy Assessmentproject (SEA). Previous studies have developed agood base of information about the state's solar andgeothermal resources; the SEA project is focusing onthe state's wind, small-scale hydro and biomassresources. Another aspect of the project is theidentification of the most appropriate uses of theavailable resources. The cost-effectiveness andreliability of various types of renewable technologiesare also being determined.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 63It's difficult to accurately estimate how widespreadis the use of renewable energy systems throughout thestate. Montana has approximately 200 renewableenergy businesses, according to a 1982 survey done bythe Alternative Energy Resources Organization. TheMontana Department of Revenue reports that 297residents received a state alternative energy tax creditduring the 1978 and 1979 tax years. In 1979, 198taxpayers received the credit, compared to 99 in 1978.The vast majority of these claims were for solarsystems: 277 out of the 297 claims. Seven windsystems received credits, six heat pumps, fourgeothermal projects, two hydro systems and two solidwaste projects. Commercial solar collectors were themost popular installation, but claims for passive solarhomes and greenhouses increased in 1979.A majority of the systems were installed in westernMontana, with most of these near Missoula. Thesecond greatest concentration is in northcentralMontana, in the Great Falls area. Taxpayers in the$20,000 to $25,000 annual income bracket made themost claims in 1978 and 1979.Energy ConservationOne of the most important energy resourcesavailable to Montanans is conservation. The efficientuse of energy supplies, both renewable andnonrenewable, should be a major component of thestate's energy policy. Wise use of energy will stretchthe available supply of conventional fuels and reduceenergy costs. Conservation is especially appropriate inMontana in light of our heating needs during thewinter.Several different programs in the state encourageMontanans to conserve energy. The state offershomeowners conservation tax credits and administersweatherization programs for low-income people. Inaddition, the publicly regulated gas and electriccompanies in the state offer their residential customersno-interest loans to finance conservation measures.The 1977 Legislature enacted state income taxdeductions for energy conservation, allowing up to$1,800 to be deducted from an individual's income forconservation improvements made to residentialbuildings. The deduction increased to $3,600 forefficiency improvements made to non-residentialbuildings.According to the State Department of Revenue,21,123 taxpayers took advantage of the conservationtax deduction in 1978. This was equal to 3.3 percentof the returns filed that year. The following year, theclaims increased to 24,560, or 6.7 percent of thereturns.Two-thirds of the conservation claims during thefirst two years of the program were for insulationexpenses, making this the most frequently claimedimprovement. Storm windows and doors were next at37 percent. Caulking and other types ofweatherization were listed on 18 percent of thereturns, glass fireplace doors on 12 percent, andinsulated siding on 2 percent. Conservation deductionswere more frequently taken by people making under$25,000 a year than those making over that amount.The 1981 Legislature changed the tax deduction to atax credit.This change benefits the public, for itenables taxpayers to deduct a portion of theirconservation expenses from their taxes owed ratherthan from their taxable income. This new tax credit isequal to the lesser of $150 or 5 percent of theexpenditure for residential buildings, and $300 or 5percent for non-residential buildings.The State Department of Social and RehabilitationServices (SRS) currently operates a federally fundedweatherization program for Montana's low-incomepopulation. The state received $2.9 million inweatherization funds during fiscal year 1982 from theDepartment of Energy (DOE) and the Department ofHealth and Human Services (HHS). It's estimatedthat there are between 27,900 and 43,000 low incomehouseholds in Montana, and to date 14,000 homeshave been weatherized since the program began in1974. An average of $430 in conservation materialshas been installed in each of these homes.A recent significant change in the weatherizationprogram occurred during the 1981 Special LegislativeSession. Prior to that time, nonprofit HumanResource Development Councils (HRDC's) were incharge of administering the programs at the locallevel. However, during the 1981 Special Session, thelegislature gave counties the option of taking overthese programs and administering them through localwelfare offices. To date, about 22 counties havedecided to take over the program's operations, whilethe rest of the counties are allowing the HRDC's tocontinue to operate the programs.UtilityIn the lastProgramsfive years, two federal laws haverequired publicly regulated utilities to become activelyinvolved in conservation and renewable energy. TheNational Energy Conservation Policy Act of 1978requires utilities to provide their residential customerswith energy audits and referrals to help theircustomers arrange for both the financing and theinstallation of cost-effective conservation measures.The Energy Security Act, passed in 1980, expanded

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 64the role utilities can play in promoting conservationand renewables. In addition to the audit and referralservices,regulated utilities are now allowed to providefinancing, materials and installation for theircustomers. Small commercial buildings and multifamilyhousing units are now also eligible for theprogram.Montana Power Company (MPC), Montana-Dakota Utilities (MDU) and Pacific Power and Light(PP&L) all offer conservation audits and no-interestloans to their residential space-heating customers.However, none of these programs has been widely usedyet by residential customers.MPC, the largest energy utility in the state,currently offers its residential space-heating customersfour-year loans of up to $2,000 for efficiencyimprovements that have payback periods of six yearsor less. Included among the eligible improvements areattic and ceiling insulation, replacement of brokenwindows, storm windows and doors, caulking andweatherstripping, clock thermostats, outside air ductsfor gas appliances, and repair or replacement of wornor damaged heating systems. In the first 30 months ofthe program, only 10 percent of MPC's eligiblecustomers received audits and 40 percent of thosetook out utility loans. The average loan during thisperiod was $818.Participation levels in the PP&L and MDUprograms have also been low. MDU serves much ofeastern Montana and its program is similar toMontana Power's in most respects. However, theMDU program has a $1,500 loan ceiling with a threeyearrepayment schedule. As of June 30, 1982, MDUhad performed audits on 6 percent of its eligiblecustomers, with 13 percent of those audited receivingutility loans. The average loan was $657.The PP&L program significantly differs from thetwo previous programs. PP&L, which serves theLibby and Kalispell areas, does not require itsresidential customers to repay their no-interest loansuntil the improved property is sold. There is nospecific ceiling on the loan amount. Amounts are tiedto the expected energy savings for each residence. Inthe first three years of the program, 13 percent ofPP&L's customers received audits, and 28 percent ofthose audited took out loans. The average loanamount was $669.ResourcesMontana Dept. of Natural Resources and ConservationEnergy Division, The Montana Renewable Energy Handbook,Helena, 1980.Montana Dept. of Revenue, "Tax Incentives for EnergyConservation in Montana," Helena.Western Solar Utilization Network, Montana Solar andWeather Information, Portland, 1980.

AGRICULTUREEQC Eighth Annual Heport - Page 65Agriculture plays a major role in Montana'senvironment. About 75 percent of Montana's land isused for agriculture, either as cropland or as grazingland. Agriculture is the largest user of the state'swater, accounting for more than 95 percent of allwithdrawals. Agricultural practices are crucialdeterminants of soil conservation, wildlife habitat andair and water quality. And agriculture is a majorcontributor to Montana's rural "quality of Hfe."The relationships between agriculturalists andenvironmentalists have not always been harmonious.Recent newspaper stories have told of controversiesover pesticides, such as Endrin and Compound 1080;over water reserved for instream flows or irrigation;over electric rates for irrigators; and over federal landgrazing policies and fees.But there are many examples of cooperationbetween these two interests, and many of these mayhave even greater potential for the future: thedevelopment of gasohol and other biofuels; soilconservation measures against saline seep and erosion;reclamation requirements for strip mines; cooperativeaccess programs for recreationists; and wildlife habitatimprovement on agricultural lands.Readers who are particularly interested in the roleof agriculture in Montana's environment should readthe EQC's Fifth Annual Report from 1976, whichfocuses in part on agriculture as a renewable resourceuse.Agriculture has long been recognized as one of themainstays of Montana's economy. It's one of theleading employers in the state, second only tomanufacturing among private sector industries ingenerating personal income. As one of the state'slargest private industries, agriculture brought nearly$1.5 biUion in cash receipts into Montana in 1981.Shifts in weather and uncertain market conditionscan cause wide fluctuations in yearly cash receiptsfrom agriculture. Receipts in 1981, for example, wereup $80 miUion from 1980 totals. In eight recent years(1974-1981), annual receipts from agriculture haveaveraged about $1.2 billion, with crops accounting for$637 million and livestock averaging $582 million.Two products dominate Montana's agriculture:wheat and cattle (including calves). In the eight yearsfrom 1974-1981, wheat averaged 37.7 percent of cashreceipts, while cattle and calves averaged 40 percent.Montana was the fourth leading wheat producing

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 66State in the nation in 1981; it was the twelfth leadingcattle and calf state. Montana also is the nation'sfourth leading barley producer, the tenth leading hayproducer, the seventh largest sheep producer and theeighth largest wool producer.When we compare combined livestock and cropreceipts by counties, northcentral Montana ranks asthe leading agricultural area in the state.Chouteau,Hill and Fergus counties rank one, two and four,respectively, in average annual cash receipts fromagriculture from 1974 to 1979. Chouteau and Hill ledin crop receipts;Beaverhead, Yellowstone and Ferguscounties led in livestock receipts.Of the 73 million acres of agricultural land inMontana, about 85 percent is privately owned. Thefederal government owns over 10.5 million acres ofrangeland in the state, and the state government ownsanother 250,000 acres of grazing land.About 55 miUion acres, or about 76 percent, of thestate's agricultural land is used for grazing; around 81percent of that, or 44.5 million acres, is in privateownership. There are 16 million acres of cropland inMontana, which accounts for 22 percent of allagricultural land; virtually all of this is privatelyowned. The remaining 2 percent is used for farmhouses and structures, roads, ponds and other uses.Forty percent, or 24 million acres, of Montana'snonfederal agricultural land is classified as "good."This land is defined as being suited for continuouscultivation and readily adaptable to wide range ofuses. Fifty-three percent of this good farmland is incrops, while 47 percent is used for range and pasture.Only 1 .2 million acres of this good farmland isclassified as "prime," and all of this acreage isirrigated. The short growing season and the lack ofwater are the two primary factors that limit theamount of prime farmland in the state.Another 17 percent, or 10.4 million acres, ofprivate farmland is considered to be "marginal" forraising crops. Most of this land is used for grazing,ahhough 1.9 million acres is being used to growcrops.And 40 percent of private agricultural land in thestate is classified as "poor," being unsuited forcultivation. Twenty-five million acres falls in thiscategory, which is used almost entirely as rangeland.ErosionSeveral national studies published in the last decadereinforce the notion that America's topsoil is beingdepleted at an alarming rate. The Soil ConservationService conducted a National Resource Inventory in1977, concluding that, on the average, 4 billion tonsof topsoil are lost annually to wind and water erosion,with the most severe problem in the midwest CornBelt. At that rate, on a uniform basis across thecountry, it would take less than 100 years for ourentire cropland base to be lost.The U.S. Department of Agriculture considers fivetons per year as the maximum rate of soil erosion anaverage acre of land can withstand without losing itslong-term agricultural productivity. According to theSCS study, the loss of five tons per acre per yeartranslates to the loss of one inch of topsoil every 30years. Twenty-six percent of Montana's cropland, or 4million acres, is eroding more rapidly than this rate;the national average for cropland is 23 percent. About8 percent of Montana's rangeland, or 3.1 millionacres, is eroding more quickly than the five tons peracre per year standard; the national average forrangeland is 11 percent.Most of the severe erosion of Montana's croplandis caused by wind. High winds are commonplace inthe Great Plains during most of the year. Winderosion is a major problem all along the Highline inMontana, as well as in the eastcentral andsouthcentral part of the state. In 1980, Montana hadthe second worst wind erosion problem in the nation.Wind erosion affects cropland to a greater extent thanit affects grazing land, since cropland often lacks anadequate ground cover after harvest to help anchorthe soil. Also, much of the cropland receives littlemoisture and a dry soil is more likely to be blownaway by strong winds. Twenty-two percent of thestate's cropland is subject to wind erosion rates of atleast 5 T/A/Y, while none of the state's rangelandexperiences wind erosion at this rate.Sheet and rill erosion caused by moving water arefar less severe problems for Montana's agriculturalland. The lack of moisture over much of the state'sfarmland is a major reason for this. Only 4 percent ofthe state's cropland and 8 percent of the rangelandexperiences sheet and rill erosion rates of 5 T/A/Y ormore.Erosion generally can be controlled effectively withproper management. Wind erosion has decreased ineastern Montana with the rise of stripcropping,retaining stubble in grain fields after harvest, andplanting grass barriers and shelterbreaks. Leaving aprotective cover on the surface of fields can reducewater erosion by up to 90 percent on many soils. Andeffective management to prevent overgrazing will helplessen both water and wind erosion on grazing land.As part of the NRI study in 1977, the SCS assessedthe conservation treatment needed for different typesof agricultural land. Almost 7 million of Montana's15.4 miUion acres of cropland are in need ofconservation improvements. The vast majority of thisland requires erosion control.II

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 67Montana is rated as having little or no nonfederalrange condition problem by the SCS. Fifty-fourpercent of the state's private rangeland is in excellentor good condition (which is defined as more than 50percent of the present plant community being in theclimax stage for that site). Thirty-nine percent is infair condition (26-50 percent in climax), and 7 percentin poor condition (25 percent or less in the climaxstage). The corresponding national averages are 40percent excellent or good, 42 percent fair, and 18percent poor.ResourcesMontana Crop and Livestock Reporting Service, MontanaAgricultural Statistics and Montana Crop and LivestocitReporter, Helena, various dates.Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation,Conservation Districts Division, Resource Conservation Plan1981-1985, Helena, 1981.U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Soil and Water Quality inMontana, Bozeman, 1981; Montana's Soil and Water ConservationProblems, 1982.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 68NOXIOUS WEEDSThe spread of noxious weeds across Montana andthe surrounding states is a significant environmentalproblem. More than 250 alien weed species have beenidentified in this region and approximately 100 ofthese may be continuing to expand their range.Although weed problems are not new, their impact onnearly all types of lands is increasing. Weeds arecausing an increasing loss of agricultural productivityat the same time that the costs and difficulty of weedcontrol are accelerating. Noxious weeds cause a multimilliondollar loss to Montana's agriculture each year.This does not include the costs of herbicides, time,labor, and fuel expended in their control. Somenoxious weeds are problems in wildlands where theyhave an impact on the productivity of forage forwildlife. Weed growth also has interfered with the useof parks and other recreational lands. The situation inMontana is particularly difficult due to the largeacreage that must be managed for weeds. The cost ofweed control can sometimes exceed the productivevalue of the land.Weeds normally serve a useful role in the naturalsuccession of disturbed plant communities. Nativeweed species are generally the first plants to coverdisturbed soil surfaces and stabilize soil and moistureconditions. These plants are eventually replaced bydesirable grasses or other more valuable foragespecies. However, many of the weeds that arecurrently a problem are exotic species, introducedfrom other regions of the world. Natural controls,such as insects, are not present to limit their growth.Thus many of the exotic noxious weeds are able toexpand their range even into well-established stands ofvegetation.

EQC Eighth Annua/ Report Page -iProblem SpeciesControlAlthough there are a large number of weed speciespresent in the state, the most prevalent problems arecaused by only a few species.Leafy Spurge (Euphorbia esula)This species was firstidentified in Montana between1911 and 1920; it has now spread to nearly everycounty. It has infested approximately 500,000 acres inMontana and approximately two and one-half millionacres in 25 other states and several Canadianprovinces.Livestock, except sheep, will avoid leafyspurge. Hay crops containing this weed are of reducedvalue. Once established, the stands of leafy spurge areparticularly difficult to control and they requirerepeated treatment over several years.Like most other environmental problems, the costof preventing adverse conditions is much less thanproviding a cure. It is possible to minimize weed infestationsby management practices that maintainvigorous competitive range plants and the use ofweed-free feed and clean crop seed. Proper cleaningof heavy equipment and farm mchinery will alsominimize the spread to other locations. Chemical controlsare the most effective means of eliminating orreducing existing stands of weeds. However, theappropriatechemical, application rate and time ofapplicationall influence the success of treatment.Herbicides, like any other pesticide, can have seriousside effects on non-target plants or other organisms ifnot used properly. Because of cost and hazard, itisextremelyimportant that herbicide applicators are welltrained.Knapweeds (Diffuse knapweed, Centaurea diffusa;spotted knapweed, C. maculosa; and Russian knapweed,C. repens)Knapweed is a prevalent species throughout westernand central Montana, but stands have been found asfar east as Glendive. This weed has infested nearly 1.6million acres ranging from prime farmland in thevalleys to marginally productive lands in the highmountain areas. It is a special threat to rangeland andlivestock producers. Knapweed invades nearly anydisturbed soil area, but it also invades establishedrange lands, especially during a drought. Onceestablished, knapweed crowds out native species dueto its superior early spring growth and its avoidanceby foraging livestock.Experimentation with knapweed control by rangespecialists at Montana State University indicates thatknapweed can reduce the carrying capacity of a rangeby more than 50 percent. These projections estimatethat knapweeds are costing Montana ranchersapproximately 640,000 animal-unit-months per year orapproximately $7,680,000 annually. This figure doesnot include the costs of control efforts.In addition to leafy spurge and knapweeds, infestationsof the following weeds are also serious in manylocations: Canadian thistle, musk thistle, field bindweedand kochia. Each of these species presentsspecial problems and requires special control efforts.Biological ControlBecause many of the weed species of concern wereintroduced from other regions of the world, they donot have natural controls (parasites, predators orpathogens). Biological control is a deliberate use ofnatural enemies of the plants to reduce weedpopulations to tolerable levels.Montana started a biological control program in1976 to identify useful control agents and introducethem into infested regions. Under the presentprogram, administered through Montana StateUniversity, 13 insect species have been introducedagainst seven species of weeds. Three of these insectsare increasing and spreading while the fate of theothers is not certain. The most successfulintroductions are insects that stress the spottedknapweed and the musk thistle; there is some evidencethat these are having an impact on weeds in someareas. However, it should be emphasized thatbiological control only serves to weaken the weed andsupplemental control practices are necessary to beeffective. For example, musk thistle may be weakenedby a biological control agent but grass or othercompeting plants must be established at the same timeto crowd out the weakened plants. If usedappropriately, these efforts may reduce the weeddamage to relatively insignificant levels.Biological controls also offer a method for weedcontrol in environmentally sensitive areas. Establishedstands of weeds in these areas may be significantlyreduced and their spread held in check by biologicalcontrols.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 70Although development of biological controls is along-term process, investment in such research anddemonstration projects appears to offer long-termeconomic and environmental benefits.ResourcesForcella, Frank and S. Harvey, New and Exotic Weeds ofMonUna; Recent Introductions and Migration and Distributionof 100 AUen Weeds in Northwestern USA, 1881-1980,Bozeman, 1981.Montana Agricultural Experiment Station, Biological WeedControl in MonUna, Bozeman, 1979.Montana Dept. of Agriculture et al. Northern RegionalLeafy Spurge Conference Proceedings, Billings, 1979.

HUMAN ENVIRONMENTEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 71The quality of the environment for humans dependson more than just the physical aspects of oursurroundings. Other fundamental elements are publichealth and safety; economic, education, andrecreation opportunities; social equality; politicalfreedom; and mobility. Because everyone placesdifferent values on these amenities, it is impossible todefine these components of environmental qualitythrough some simple index. On the other hand, theyare too important to ignore. This report will attemptto provide some pertinent information about thismuch-touted but ethereal quahty of life in Montanathat we label the human environment.PopulationThe most important variable in the humanenvironment is the number of people and where theylive. According to the 1980 United States census,Montana's population in 1980 was 786,690, up 92.281from the 1970 level.Although this total would beinsignificant for many states or even some cities,represents a 13.3 percent decennial rate of growth,compared to a 2.9 percent rate during the 1960s.About 65 percent of that increase is attributable tomore people being born than dying; the rest is theproduct of net migration into the state. This is areversal of the trends of the 1950s and 1960s, whenmore people left Montana than moved to it. Despitethe increase in population, Montanans arereproducing at a slower rate now than then. Becauseof these changes in demographic trends, thecomposition of Montana's population is changing.While the percentage of Montana's population overthe age of 40 has remained relatively stable, a largerproportion of Montana's population is now in the 20to 30 age bracket and a smaller share is in the under20 age bracket. The increase in the 20 to 30 bracket isprobably due to immigration and the post war babyboom; the decrease in the younger bracket is probablydue to the lower fertility rate. In any event, assumingthe growth rate of the 1970s continues into the 1980s,Montana's population today probably exceeds800,000.By race, Montana is predominantly Caucasian, butit

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 72Other races are increasing their numbers more thanthree times as quicitly. Females in Montana areincreasing slightly faster than males.Western Montana's population is growing fasterthan eastern Montana's, but a total of 33 countiesregistered population gains in the 1970s. Thedecennial rates of change ranged from 64. 1 percentincrease in Rosebud County to a 20 percent decreasein Deer Lodge County. The most widespread growthappeared in the urban centers of western Montana,with the major exceptions of Butte and Anaconda. Inthe east, energy development has ignited rapid growthin Rosebud and Richland counties, while YellowstoneCounty's protracted urban growth appears to havespilled over into neighboring Stillwater County.Moderate population gains continue in most of thecounties that straddle the Yellowstone River, butdeclines continue in most of the strictly agriculturalcounties in the extreme northeast and southeastcorners of the state.Statewide, the population densityhas risen from 4.78 persons per square mile to 5.41persons per square mile.The U.S. Census Bureau defines any place with apopulation over 2,500 as urban. With that definition,Montana's urban population grew by 12.3 percent inthe 1970s compared to 9.5 percent in the 1960s. Asimilar comparison for the rural population isstriking, because it decreased in the 1960s by 3.7percent and increased in the 1970s by 14.4 percent. Atthe same time, and partly attributable to a change indefinition, the farm population of Montana shrunkfrom 82,129 to 56,429 in 1980. The 1970 definitionincluded all rural places with annual sales of $250 ormore in farm products plus rural places of 10 or moreacres with sales of $50 or more. The 1980 definitionincludes only those places from which $1,000 or morein farm products are sold annually. Since the numberof people living in towns of fewer than 2,500 residentsremained relatively constant over this period, thenumber of people living in non-farm, non-designatedplaces grew rapidly during the 1970s, accounting fornearly 29 percent of Montana's population.It is interesting to note that while the populationhas increased 13.3 percent over the decade, thenumber of marriages occurring between 1970 and1980 increased by 16.9 percent. The number ofdivorces increased by 46.8 percent. The ratio ofmarital terminations to marriages over the decadegrew from .4772 to .5926. In other words, the chanceof any marriage ending in divorce increased from 47percent to 59 percent. However, the figure had beenhigher (up to 65 percent) during a few years in thatperiod, and it may be going down today.Business Indicators1980 1981'gsEmployment and labor force, annual average:Total civilian labor force thousands^ _ 364.8 384.9 +5 5Unemployment do 22.6 27 8 +23.0Employment (nonagricultural):Mining' do 88 11.5 +30.7Manufacturing do 24.2 23.5 -2.9Contract construction do 14,5 13.4 -7.6Transportation and public utilities do 22 4 22.7 + 1.3Wholesale and reUil trade do 72 3 73 7 +1.9Finance, insuranse, real estate do 12 9 12.9Services __ do 55 1 56.7 +2.9Government do 70.2 70.7 +.7Total nonagricultural employment' do 280.4 '285.2 + 1 7Personal income:Total _ millions- _ $6,822 $7,669 + 12 4Percap^tall' $8,652 $9,676 +118Construction activity:Numberof private and public residential units authorized 2,374 1,852 -22.0Value of nonresidential construction millions.. $55 2 $85.6 +55.1Value ofSUte road contract awards do $64 $61.0 -4.7Shipments of portland and masonry cement to and within the Statethousand short tons _ 294 302 + 2 7Nonfuei mineral production value:Total crude mineral value millions. _ $279.6 $305.1 +9 1Value per capita, resident population $355 $388 +93Value per square mile $1,900 $2,073 +9.1"Preliminary.'Includes bituminous coal and oil and gas extraction.'Data do not add to total shown because of independent rounding.Sources: US Department of Commerce, US Department of Labor, Highway and Heavy Construction Magazine, andr S Bureau of Mines.

EQC Eighth Annua] Report - Page 73EconomyPublic assistance to the poor in Montana hasincreased dramatically since 1978.Since Montana became a territory, its economy hasbeen dominated by two industries: agriculture andmineral extraction. In 1980, gross receipts from thesetwo activities were $1.5 billion and $1.3 billion,respectively. Manufacturing of lumber and woodproducts, printing and publishing, primary metals,food products, petroleum products, stone and clayproducts and miscellaneous commercial productsadded another $1 billion in income for Montana.Tourism accounted for $510 million in gross receiptsin the same year. Montana's top four industries allhave one thing in common. They are closely related tothe rich supply of natural resources. The economy ofMontana depends on this natural resource cornucopia.This is ultimately true for all states, but in Montanathe relationship is more straightforward. Montanansrealize that sustaining their economy depends onsustaining a careful investment of the profits of theirenvironment. Protecting the environment is importantbecause it is the source of our future wealth. On theother hand, we are currently learning that theenvironment can be threatened when the economy isfaltering. This is not a simple either/or proposition.In Montana, the economy and the environment areintertwined in a mutually dependent, symbioticrelationship. This makes economic development amore serious challenge, and may require a longer timehorizon than economic planners have traditionallyused.In recent years the economy of Montana, like thenational economy, has suffered from two major andpersistent problems: inflation and unemployment. Atthe same time, per capita income has been inchingupward. In the final analysis, that is probably the bestindicator of real economic progress when measured inconstant dollars.Although Montanans have seen the rate of inflationfall, unemployment has risen significantly.Unemployment is much higher in some parts of thestate than in others, most notably where timber andcopper production have historically been the economicstaples.Poverty is a very difficult thing to define forstatistical purposes. Various places have differentstandards of living.Historically, figures used toindicate the level of poverty in Montana are slightlyhigher than those of our regional neighbors. Amongthese states, Montana used to have the second highestrate of poverty. Significant improvement has beenmade since then, and Montana today ranks very nearthe national average. In 1980, 94,262 Montanans livedin poverty, according to federal government figures.This is 11.98 percent of the population, as comparedto 13.6 percent in 1970. For Native Americans,however, the 1980 figure is 34.6 percent.EducationThe biggest direct expenditure by governments inMontana is for education. In 1980, state and localgovernments invested $544 million. In that period,106,000 students were enrolled in elementary schools,53,000 in secondary schools, and 26,000 in Montana'scolleges and universities.Over 75 percent of Montana's population olderthan 25 years possesses a high school diploma. Of thissame age group, 37 percent have attended at least oneyear of college and 17 percent have completed four ormore years. The median education is 12.7 years.Montana has always taken great pride in its publiceducation system. Compared to national averages,scores on national achievement and aptitude tests inMontana are consistently high. Montana has fostereda 99.4 percent literacy rate since 1970. Criticism of theeducation system is usually aimed at the large numberof school districts that have been created at both theprimary and secondary levels. Inefficiency inadministration and the high per capita cost ofeducation are the primary reasons for this criticism.Incorporation of school districts is taking place, butoften against local opposition. Small ruralcommunities take great pride in their schools.Residents of these communities identify strongly withthe local school; some claim the students respond tothat interest by making a greater effort. It may bethat this is one reason the quality of these schoolsoften has been so good, although per capita costs maybe high. The effects school district incorporationshave on local communities and education in generalmust be weighed against the tax impacts.Actual enrollment in the Montana university systemseems to be outpacing projections, one reason beingthe poor job market. At the same time, federalfinancial aid to college students is diminishing. Thisloss of financial assistance, along with theskyrocketing cost of research, is creating a majorfunding problem for the state. Vocational educationprograms exist in 1 12 of Montana's high schools. Thestate also finances five postsecondary vocationaltechnicalcenters.HealthThe health status of Montana's citizens is anothersubject difficult to quantify. The Montana

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 74Department of Health and Environmental Sciencesuses 13 indicators to rank areas of the state, theresults of which are found in the figure below.According to these statistics, Petroleum County is thehealthiest place to live in Montana, while GlacierCounty is the least healthy.The incidence of reportable disease is anotherindicator of health. In 1979, there were no reportedcases of diptheria, polio, typhoid, or tetanus inMontana. Unfortunately, there were 1,622 cases ofgonorrhea, 186 cases of hepatitis, and 144 cases ofshigelosis (dysentery from food poisoning). Anothercommonly used indicator of a population's health isthe infant death rate (deaths before a first birthday inproportion to total births). Since 1970, the infantdeath rate in Montana has decreased by 50 percent; in1979, only 10.7 out of every 1,000 infants died beforetheir first birthday.An unquantifiable component of the healthenvironment is the quality of care and the availabilityof specialized medical and psychological technologies.More and more, Montanans are able to get the carethey need for unusual health problems without havingto leave the state. The state offers facilities for thosewith mental problems, the developmentally disabled,and chemically dependent residents. Hospitals inMontana's largest cities are increasingly equipped withthe latest in surgical, radiological and chemicaltechnologies.There are 93 private long-term care facilities (resthomes) in Montana. In 1980, they operated at 90percent occupancy. The six additional state-operatedfacilities operated at 74.6 percent occupancy, but theyHealth Indicator Rankings; 1976-1980Ranked according to deathscategories:1)2)3)4)5)6)7)8)9)10)11)Motor Vehicle DeathsOther Accidental DeathsLung CancerUterine CancerLiver CirrhosisSuicideHomicideLow Birth WeightNeonatal DeathsPost-Neonatal DeathsInfant Deathsin the following12) Fetal Deaths13) Age-Adjusted Death Rates, 1969-1971PetroleumCarterJudith BasinGallatinGarfieldPrairieTreasureLibertyFallonStillwaterMusselshellFergusLincolnWibauxPowellCusterDawsonMineralHillMissoulaYellowstoneChouteauDanielsPowder RiverSweet GrassTooleMcConeCOUNTYRavalliCarbonLewis & ClarkGolden ValleySheridanRichlandMadisonCascadeJeffersonParkGraniteWheatlandDeer LodgeValleyFlatheadPonderaBeaverheadBroadwaterTetonMeagherLakePhillipsRosebudRooseveltBlaineSandersBig HornSilver BowGlacierSUM OF13 RANKS135174186206206208216226227250272279284297312316316316317327327328334345350363379408412432436441441450456474491518522532543563571609Source: DHES

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 75served a more limited clientele. There are 61 licensedprivate hospitals in Montana, with a combined totalcapacity of 3,405 patients. Thus, there are 4.3 hospitalbeds for every 1,000 residents of Montana and 4.8hospital beds for every 1,000 square miles. Because ofMontana's immense size, a common concern is theavailability of those beds.Health care facilities are useless without trainedstaff. For every 10,000 Montanans, there are 13 activephysicians, 24 licensed practical nurses and 61registered nurses. There are also 454 full-time dentalpractitioners in Montana.The four leading causes of death in Montana areheart disease, cancer, cardiovascular disease (stroke)and accidents (over one-half of which are vehiclerelated).The rates of three of these causes of deathare decreasing; the rate for cancer is graduallyincreasing.Alcoholism and alcohol abuse afflict about 8.5percent of Montana's non-Indian population,according to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Division ofthe Montana Department of Institutions. AmongNative Americans, the Montana United IndianAssociation estimates the figure is around 70 percent.About 250 deaths are caused each year by alcoholpsychosis, chronic alcoholism, cirrhosis and alcoholrelatedaccidents on the highways. Montana has thedubious distinction of ranking third in the nation inper capita beer consumption and 11th in overallconsumption of alcohol beverages.The number of legal abortions has increasedsteadily since record keeping began in 1975 inMontana, with 3,447 occurring in 1979. Even withthese increases, the rate in Montana is substantiallybelow the average for the nation. No rehable data areavailable on illegal abortions. It should also be notedthat no maternal deaths have ever been reported fromlegally induced abortions in this state. The highestabortion rates are in Flathead, Gallatin, Lewis andClark, Missoula and Yellowstone counties. In 1979,there were 236 legal abortions per 1 ,000 live births inMontana.Suicide rates have been relatively stable inMontana. Between 1973 and 1979, 15 to 20 deaths per100,000 persons have been recorded each year: a totalof 859 deaths. Recent reports speculate the suiciderate may be increasing for housewives and in areaswith severely impacted economies.CrimePolls have repeatedly demonstrated a nationalconcern about the rate of crime. While Montana doesnot suffer crime at a rate comparable to moreurbanized states, over recent years the state's trendhas been upward.The Montana Board of Crime Control publishesannual crime reports for Montana. The incidence ofseven major crimes (homicide, rape, aggravatedassault, robbery, burglary, larceny/theft and autotheft) are used to indicate overall crime rates.Seven Major Index CrimesOffenses Reporte

EQC Eighth AnnuoJ Report - Page 76commercial carriers. Montanans registered 679,532cars, trucks and buses in 1980, even though only599,000 drivers were licensed to use them. The FederalHighway Administration (FHWA) estimates vehicleregistrations increased by 6.4 percent in 1981.Together, these motor vehicles consumed 515 milliongallons of fuel on the highways in 1980. Projectionsare that motor fuel consumption will increase on thehighways of Montana, but only slightly and muchmore slowly than the historical average growth.Most people agree that Montana's roads are slowlydeteriorating with decreased funding by the federalgovernment during the last few years. The MontanaDepartment of Highways has experienced some majorchanges as a result. Cuts in personnel andadministrative districts may ease the budget crunch inthe short run, but there is only so far the departmentcan go in this direction. There are also many effortsto cut costs by reducing paperwork, and two are ofnote.The FHWA has issued new guidelines for statereporting requirements. It expects that this effort willdecrease the overall reporting burden by one-third andprovide a single, clear and comprehensive document.Second, the FHWA has recently attempted to easeits regulations governing environmental programs,especially with regard to the preparation of EISs,noise. Section 404 permits concerning wetlands, andair quality sanctions and control strategies. Theanticipation is that substantial streamlining ofenvironmental regulation can save money.Actual construction on Montana highways occurredon 194.7 miles in fiscal year 1981 and 383.5 miles in1982, at costs of $60.7 million and $78.1 million,respectively. Construction lags somewhat behindcontracts awarded. While the number of miles ofconstruction per year is apparently going up, manyfeel the progress is too slow.A final note on Montana's highway system is thatwhile its configuration serves travel from east to west,it often makes north-south travel difficult. With theexception of 1-15, no major highways serve northsouthtraffic. Any remedy for this particular problemisunlikely.Rail transport is limited to commercial shipping,with the exception of the northern Amtrak passengerroute. Montana and North Dakota have beennegotiating with the federal government to reestablishthe southern Amtrak line, but the prospect for addingthat passenger route is unknown.Most rail service is limited to two BurlingtonNorthern east-west mainlines, but the Union Pacific,Soo Line, and Milwaukee Road still enter the stateand provide some access to out-of-state markets.While much of the state's incoming freight travels byrail,the railroads are even more important forshipping our coal and agricultural products out of thestate.Rail service, especially from the BN, willtherefore be of vital importance to the future ofMontana.Currently there are five major airlines that serveMontana, and two smaller airlines that serve a smallerarea and clientele. Montana has 121 public-useairports and 57 fixed-base charter services.Intracity and intraregional public transportationsystems are available in many parts of Montana: thecities of Billings,Butte, Missoula and Helena; Valley,Garfield, and Powder River counties; and the FortPeck Indian Reservation. Because of a decline in thenumber of taxicab companies across the state (from33 in 1976 to 24 in 1980) and the currentdeinstitutionalization policy for the handicapped andelderly, most counties provide some kind of specialtransportation system for these people. Only ninecounties have no such arrangements.HousingHousing characteristics in Montana improvedduring the 1970s. The number of rooms per homeincreased from 4.7 to 5.0; the number of persons perhousing unit decreased from 2.6 to 2.3; and thepercentage of homes owned by the people who livedin them increased from 66 to 69 percent. Also, thepercentage of units lacking complete plumbingfacilities decreased from 6.6 to 2.3 percent. There arestill 25 Montana counties in which at least 5 percentof the housing has inadequate plumbing; GoldenValley, Judith Basin, Meagher, and Wibaux countieshave over 10 percent in that condition.The median value of owner-occupied homesincreased by 332 percent and the median contract forrent increased by 232 percent between 1970 and 1980.This was good news for those who owned homes orapartment buildings, but not as good for peopletrying to rent or to buy. Inflation, mortgage interestrates and energy costs in the last few years have madehome ownership very expensive. In fact, the numberof vacant homes for sale doubled between 1970 and1980. The housing construction industry has sufferednationally and in Montana, resulting in a slump in thetimber trade in western Montana. The MontanaDepartment of Labor and Industry's monthlyestimates of new residential building permitsdemonstrates this point. Based on a sample of 12Montana cities, annual new home constructiondecreased by 33 percent between 1979 and 1980, andby an additional 40 percent between 1980 and 1981.New residential building permits in the first quarter of1982 were only 20 percent of the level in the firstquarter of 1979.Well over half of Montana's year-round housingunits were built before 1960. Older homes may be asstructurally sound as new ones, but they generallyrequire higher maintenance costs and are likely to use

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 77more energy. For the immediate future, it is possiblethat the construction industry will see moreremodeling and renovation work than construction ofnew homes. For new homes, the trend of the 1960sand 1970s toward larger, spacious houses may bereplaced by smaller, energy-efficient designs suitablefor smaller families.Montana Government Per CapitaCivic ParticipationAs a general tenet of democracy, greater citizenparticipation is held as a virtue, and it is thegovernment's responsibility to solicit it. Montanacitizens place great importance on their participationin elections. While impact of their votes in nationalelections may be small, Montana has consistentlyranked in the top five or six states in voterregistration and participation during presidentialelections, and even higher in "off-year" generalelections. While the national average for people votingin general elections is under 50 percent, Montana'spercentage is often over 60 percent during presidentialelections. The 1982 elections exemplify this point.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 78these governments truly represent their constituents,they should accurately reflect the attitudes andorientations of Montanans. Issues of priority for thesegovernments must be important to the people, and theamount of money allocated to resolving public issuesand problems should reflect these priorities. Althoughit's a far from perfect parameter, the best indicator ofgovernment's perception of a problem is how it getsand uses resources to solve it. As most governmentofficials freely admit, the term "governmentresources" should be interpreted as "money."Montana state and local governments collected$1.94 billion in revenues in 1980, the most currentfigures available. The state collected 54 percent of thisamount, while local governments (including counties,municipalities, school districts, and special districts)raised the rest. Of this total, $643 million is the resultof intergovernmental transfers (not counting transfersbetween local governments). The state received $370.6million, almost all of which came from the federalgovernment. Local governments received just under$70 million from the federal government and $203million from the state. Most of the latter goes toschool districts, which also received $93 million fromother local governments. Montana ranks third in thenation among states in per capita revenues from thefederal government ($551.34). Montana governmentsreceived $227 million in revenues from the state liquorstores, publicly owned utilities, and insurance trustaccounts.That leaves 55 percent of Montana governmentrevenues to be collected from taxes, charges and othersources. Local governments depend heavily on theproperty tax, while the largest tax source for stategovernment is the individual income tax. The statealso imposes selective sales taxes, license taxes and acorporate income tax. Each citizen of Montana paidjust under $1,000 in taxes to state and localgovernments in1980, which ranked the state 16thhighest in the nation. The property tax accounts fornot quite half of that, which ranks Montana 7thhighest in the nation.Miscellaneous charges and revenue accounted for$280 million, with the state and local governmentsreceiving almost identical amounts. Charges includefees from universities, hospitals and hunting andfishing licenses.Miscellaneous revenues include theinterest on investments other than the insurance trust,such as the coal tax trust fund, and the issuance ofbonds.The major differences between the ways Montanaand the "average" state collects revenues isMontana's greater reliance on the property tax andlack of a general sales tax, and the amount Montanareceives from the federal government. The federalgovernment contributes 29 percent of the generalrevenues of the state, while 38 percent originates atthe state level and 33 percent is raised at the locallevel.Even more interesting is where the money goes. Atthe most basic level, it goes into salaries (41 percent),maintaining current operations (34 percent), capitaloutlays (20 percent), interest payments (3.1 percent)and assistance and subsidization (1.7 percent).Everything else receives a total of .2percent.In terms of direct expenditures, by far the largest atthe state and local level is education; the brunt of thatburden is carried by school districts. Much of thestate's transfer to local governments is spent here.State expenditures for the university system rank asthe 4th largest single budget item. When compared toexpenditures for higher education by other states, thisNatural Resource Tax CollectionsFiscal Year 1982NaturalResourceOilGasCoalMisc. MinesMetal MinesRITT5,309,304491,1231,000,195152,912205,509Severance49,523,7612,700,70486,186,746—0——0—MetalliferousMines-0--0--0-—0—1,861,208Net or GrossProceeds64.551,24121,823,99913.038,9731,308,4041,060,914MicaceousMines—0—-0--0-10,432—0—Total119,284,30625,015,826100.226,0141,471.7483,127,631Gross Value1,052.333,90792,490,539389,885,11286,124.246108,053,359Taxes as % ofGross Value11.311.725.71.72.9Total7,159,043 138,410,329 1,861,208 101,783,531 10,432249,225,525 1,728,857,163 14.4Source: Montana Department of Revenue. Net or Gross Proceeds column derived from average mill levy for state, county andschools for each county, applying it to the taxable value of production, and adding them for a state total.The severance tax figures include the Oil and Gas Conservation Board Tax and the portion of the severance tax returnedto the counties. Amounts for the fourth quarter of 1982 are estimates.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 79expense is relatively low, but on a per capita basis it'shigh.The second largest budget item for combined stateand local governments is highways and roads.Funding of highways is also the source of much of thefederal money that the state receives. Roads are oneof the largest budget items for the state and countygovernments. Expenditures for local schools and stateroads together account for half of state and localgovernment expenditures in Montana. On a per capitabasis, both of these expenditures rank Montana 3rdhighest among the 50 states.The next two largest budget items are public welfareand health, and hospital expenditures. Montanadevotes a smaller proportion of its budget to thesethan do most other states (ranked 33 and 42,respectively). Both are financed primarily with stategovernment money.Montana seems to place greater importance on thenext largest direct expenditure than other states do.This isnatural resources and parks, and the stateranks 4th in the nation in per capita expenditure forthem. For many states this might be consideredfrivolous expense, but Montana considers it aninvestment in the economy, with the dividendsaccrued to the tourism industry. The expense is sharedfairly evenly between state and local governments.Pohce and fire protection is a major expenditurefor municipal governments, and a significant expensefor counties and the state as well. The final majorcategory of this magnitude is interest payments, withlocal governments generally deeper in debt than thestate.Other important budget items that seem lesssignificant, at least in terms of dollars spent, includepayments for financial administration and generalcontrol (ranking 4th and 6th among states on a percapita expenditure basis), and the low premiums paidfor sewage and housing and urban development (46thand 49th, respectively).Overall, Montana governments, especially the state,are in relatively good financial condition. They rank37th in per capita debt outstanding and fairly high incash and securities holdings. Montana stategovernment bonds have been given the highestpossible rating by Moody's, a leading banking ratingservice.ResourcesMontana Board of Crime Control, Annual Crime Reports,Helena, various dates.Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research, MontanaStatistics 1982, Missoula, 1982.Montana Dept. of Administration, 1980 Montana PopulationProfile, Helena.Montana Dept. of Community Affairs, Transportation inMontana, 1980, Helena.Montana Dept. of Health and Environmental Sciences,Montana Health Data Book and Medical Facilities Inventory,Helena, 1980; Montana Vital Statistics, 1981, 1983.U.S. Bureau of the Census, reports from the 1980 Census,various dates.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 80MONTANA/FEDERALRELATIONSMontana's political boundaries do not conform toany particular physical environment; our atmospheric,hydrospheric, lithospheric and biospheric regions areshared with our neighbors. The environment is theproduct of forces beyond the state's politicaljurisdiction, and it cannot be constricted by stationarygovernment boundaries. Montana's state governmentcan only share responsibility for, not dictate, thequality of this environment.Also affecting the quality of the state's environmentare millions of actions of private citizens, many ofwhich we hold inviolable from governmentintervention. To do otherwise, we believe, mighteventually lead to the complete control of our lives bythe state.Not only are many ecological factors and manyaspects of human conduct beyond the rule ofgovernment, but there are some political decisionsaffecting Montana over which the state governmenthas no direct control. Montana can't tell Alberta,Wyoming or the Department of the Interior how tomake decisions, even though the decisions they makemight affect Montana. The efforts of Montana tomaintain healthy air, water and land resources may bemeaningless if other government units, especially inthe federal government, refuse to implement similarcontrols within their jurisdictions.Montana looks to the federal government to fulfilla variety of roles as an environmental regulator, withspecial emphasis on three:(1) To establish national policies that reflect thebest interest of all the country's citizens, especially:(a) providing minimum standards to guarantee thesafety and health of the environment; and(b) insuring the conservation of natural resourcesand the nation's heritage;(2) To provide a system of reimbursement for thoselocal areas facing unfair impacts as a result ofproviding for the national interest; and(3) To negotiate with other countries on minimizinginternational environmental problems.Almost 30 percent of the total area of Montana isowned by the federal government, with another S'/ipercent held in trustfor Native Americans. Obviously,utilization of this land is of paramount importance tothe people and government of Montana. The Bureauof Land Management and the Forest Service togethercontrol 88 percent of the federally managed land inMontana. This section on the federal government'senvironmental role in Montana will focus on thesetwo agencies.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 81The amount of land in federal ownership changes.Federal agencies can dispose of land through landexchanges, sales at public auction, state school trustselections, mineral patents, the Recreation and PublicPurposes Act, the Desert Land Act, the Color-of-TitleActs, and the Carey Act. The current political trendhas switched from acquiring land to stave offdevelopment's encroachment on natural areas, todisposing of lands not considered economicallyfeasible to administer. The current federaladministration feels this change in policy is warrantedby federal budget deficits, and hopes that thesenatural areas can be better protected through thepublic and private purchase of conservationeasements. Its selection of lands suitable for disposalis still being studied.The federal agency most likely to dispose of someof its land in the state is the Bureau of LandManagement. The 1976 Federal Land PolicyManagement Act (FLPMA) espoused a general policyof perpetual ownership of federal lands. However, italso established guidelines for sales of BLM landunder certain circumstances. The Montana office ofthe BLM is currently developing specific criteria toidentify lands for disposal under FLPMA as part ofits planning process. In addition, Montana and theBLM are negotiating over about 25,750 acres to betransferred to the state for school trust lands. About30 individual transactions involving small tracts ofBLM lands are also being processed for transfer tothe state and to various local governments as part ofthe agency's Community Expansion/Good NeighborProgram.The Forest Service is less likely to dispose of itsland. The most significant type of potential landtransfer is through exchange with the state, otherfederal agencies or private individuals. Theseexchanges would be undertaken to consolidatemanagement units in order to make them easier toadminister. It is probable that the Forest Servicedisposes of more lands indirectly through mineralclaims than it does through its management policies.Federal Land in Montana by AgencyManaging Agency

EQC Eighth Annua] Report - Page 82contain four general ways to lease minerals. (1)Exploration for locatable minerals on lands that haveleft the public domain with mineral rights remainingwith the federal government requires a prospectingpermit. Upon a certifiable discovery, the prospector isentitled to a preference right lease. (2) Minerals moregenerally under the leasable category, if within ageologic formation recognized by the USGS as havingproduction potential, are leased by competitivebidding. (3) A developer interested in an area outsidesuch a formation can apply for a noncompetitivelease.(4) Finally, expired oil and gas leases can beresubmitted for lease through the lottery process,which has recently come under intense public scrutiny.In March 1982, for minerals other than coal, oiland natural gas, there were 26 prospecting permitapplications pending (19 for bentonite, 6 forvanadium and 1 for phosphorous); six leaseapplications pending certification of discovery (fourfor geothermal steam, one for bentonite and one forphosphate; and 28 leases in effect (allfor phosphate).Existing leases cover 22,033 acres. Applications forleases have been filed for 5,336 acres and appHcationsfor prospecting permits for 45,651 acres.Phosphate production from Montana federal landsin fiscal1982 was 56,781 short tons. In the future, theproduction of bentonite will be a major component ofnonfuel minerals on federal lands. Prospectingpermits for this valuable clay are only a smallindication of the level of interest in it. Severalthousand bentonite claims accounting for well over100,000 acres have also been established on lands thatnever left the public domain, which fall under theGeneral Mining Act. There have been 85 patentapplications on bentonite claims near Malta, Alzadaand Bridger alone.Oil and natural gas leasing can be accomplishedthrough competitive bidding, application fornoncompetitive leasing, or a simultaneous oil and gasfilings lottery. As of September 30, 1982, there were1 1 ,232 federal oil and gas leases in effect in Montana,involving 12,432,022 acres. Twenty-three of theseleases were issued in FY 1982 through competitivebidding. This procedure is being used increasingly, butit is far less common than leases issued throughnoncompetitive applications, of which 1,710 wereissued in the same period. The number ofnoncompetitive leases awarded had remained fairlystable for the previous five years. However, thenumber of people filing in the simultaneous oil andgas lottery has increased dramatically since 1980, with1 ,049 leases being issued to successful applicants inFY 1982. But rarely does participation in the lotterylead to a producing oil or natural gas well.In fiscal1980, federal lands in Montana produced 5,795,596barrels of petroleum and 12,334,580 thousand cubicfeet of natural gas.Coal must be leased through the competitivebidding process. Before the Powder River coal sale onApril 28,1982, there were 22 federal coal leases ineffect in Montana accounting for 37,584 acres ofstate, federal and private land. Cumulative productionof the 10 producing federal leases in Montana wasover 215 million tons by the end of fiscal 1982.The coal leasing process is going through majorchanges. Between 1971 and 1979, no additionalfederal coal was leased in Montana. In 1979, a newcoal leasing program established regional coal teamsand regional coal leasing areas. Parts of Montana liein two of these regions: the Fort Union Region andthe Powder River Region. Under the 1979 regulations,eight Montana tracts were offered for lease in thePowder River Region on April 28. Six of these tracts,totaling 7,943 acres, were apparently successfully bidupon, but there was some controversy surroundingwhether bids were commensurate with fair marketvalue, and there were allegations that BLM's lowestacceptable bids were leaked to bidders. These leasesare being reviewed by the courts.The 1979 regulations were replaced on July 30,1982, when notice of final rule making was posted inthe Federal Register. The new rules were designed tostreamline the process, but concern was voiced bywestern governors that the real intent was to reducethe role of regional coal teams, and other criticsclaimed that the rules would unduly accelerate the rateof coal leasing. These new regulations have alsobecome the subject of litigation, so operations arecontinuing under the 1979 rules. The exact future offederal coal leasing in Montana is not known.Mineral claims and leases on Forest Service landsentail another procedure on top of the requirementsof the BLM. Before mining activity can commence,"notice of intention to operate" has to be filed withthe Forest Service. If the Forest Service determinesthat the operation may cause a significant disturbanceto the environment, it may require a "plan ofoperations" detailing the mining operation and thesteps the operator will take to reclaim the area oncemining is completed; a reclamation bond may berequired also. The plan must be approved before theoperation can commence. Because of increasedinterest in oil and natural gas in the overthrust belt, asubstantial backlog has developed in this process.Even though the ultimate decision to approve or rejectleases and mining claims still resides with the BLM,the recommendations of the Forest Service aretantamount to the decision.The federal government's role in mineraldevelopment is indeed great in Montana. More thanany other actions of the federal government, nationalenergy and critical minerals policies have the greatestpotential to change this state's landscape. It isimperative that the government and people of thisstate have good access to the formation of thesepolicies, and that the federal government takes heedof Montana's interest.{

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 83GrazingAgriculture in Montana depends on the federalgovernment for protection from flooding and erosion,financing for irrigation and stockpond projects, andthe regulation of interstate transport. But mostimportant to farmers and ranchers can be access tofederal lands for forage. It can be the differencebetween a commercially feasible ranch operation andone that is simply too small to be economical. Thefederal government has a long history of allowing itsgrasslands to be used by private enterprise for thispurpose. This traditional use has sometimes beeninterpreted by the rancher as little different thanownership.This interpretation has a historical basis. In the prebarbwire era, ranching was a highly nomadic andunregulated practice. In places like eastern Montana,cattle and sheep ranchers were the only people whohad any use for the land. Nobody would buy the landwithout access to the water the cattle baronscontrolled, so the federal government allowed theranchers a free rein. As they ran more and morelivestock, the range began to deteriorate.Compounded with the Great Drought of the 1930s,the result was tremendous soil erosion and renewedgovernment concern.The nation's first federal grazing district was theMizpah-Pumpkin Creek experiment in southeasternMontana. It was organized in 1926 to improvemanagement of, and to draw revenue from, 108,000acres of public domain, railroad grant, state schooltrust, absentee-owned and county foreclosure lands.In 1928, the federal government passed a special actthat authorized a stockmen's association to managethese lands, to trade state for federal lands toconsolidate grazing units, and to use federal lands fora nominal fee. The experiment was a success. Theland was better utilized, private owners and thefederal government both began to make money, andthe range conditions improved. Its success is alsocredited as providing an impetus for the passage in1934 of the Taylor Grazing Act.The Taylor Grazing Act established federal grazingdistricts over large portions of the federal domain,and allowed the leasing of grass to stockmen with ahistory of use. It confined those stockmen to specificareas and regulated the number of animals they couldgraze. It required a permit for access to those landsand established fees for the use of the rangedepending on the number of animal-unit-months(AUMs) allowed. Stockmen's advisory boards helpeddetermine the appropriate level of use of the range.The Taylor Grazing Act served as the BLM's primaryframework for regulating grazing on federal lands forover 40 years.As the nation grew, the general public began todemand to use these lands for various forms ofrecreation. The cry for "multiple use" was raised, butsome stockmen perceived that multiple use meant lessgrazing, while environmentalists decried the powerembodied in the stockmen's advisory boards, andargued that the government was overgrazing its landfor grazing fees that were too low.In 1976, FLPMA changed the fundamentalprinciple by which the ELM was to manage grazingfrom local control to multiple use. It replacedstockmen's advisory boards with multiple use advisoryboards. Prior to the passage of FLPMA, the courtshad ruled that the ELM had to do an EIS for each ofits grazing allotment management plans, instead ofdoing a single programmatic EIS. In 1978, following along history of trying to arrive at a fair grazing fee,the Public Rangelands Improvement Act instituted acomplex formula based on the 1966 fair market feeand current meat and production costs. These actionsmarked the end of the Taylor Grazing era in whichthe priority for ELM had been to benefit the ranchingindustry.The conflict continues over the public rangelands.In many cases, the land in question has been managedby certain ranchers for generations. While they maynot have owned the legal title to the land, they werethe only ones who paid any attention to it for asmuch as 100 years. Today, decisions made by theELM or the Forest Service may mean economic life ordeath to these ranchers. Out of these circumstances,many embraced the "Sagebrush Rebellion."The question of public access to ELM land remains.Most of the time, grazing lease operators want only toknow who is on the land, and to be able to protecttheir livestock and other property. There are stillincidents of locked gates, but these situationsprobably evolve not out of government policies, butFederal GrazingLeasesGrazing AcresBLM 3950

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 84out of a lack of courtesy on the part of somerecreationists.In terms of the whole livestock industry inMontana, the federal lands contribution is not asgreat as is commonly assumed. Yet it is significant.Not all of this is utilized although actual BLM grazingis very close to the potential maximum. In general,Forest Service land is more productive.The East Pioneers area in southwest Montana hasbeen chosen as the site for a pilot project designed toreward leaseholders whose stewardship improves rangeconditions. The 750,000-acre area is composed ofForest Service, BLM and private range owners. Theproject is apparently shaping into a success. Perhapsit can be to range poHcy what the Mizpah-PumpkinCreek experiment was to the Taylor Grazing Act: themodel for a new and lasting era of cooperation inmanaging the range. Montanans will play a leadingrole in fostering such a development.TimberMontana ranks 6th among states in timberproduction from federal lands, but only 9th in overalltimber production. Timber production from federallands is of greater significance in Montana than it isin other states. Between January 1, 1977, andDecember 31, 1981, 2.2 billion board feet of timberwas harvested on Forest Service lands. Assuming avalue of $4/bd ft, its value would be in theneighborhood of $88 million.Timber harvests from federal lands have beendeclining substantially during the previous five years.The primary reason for this is a poor market, but italso reflects Forest Service management givingincreased importance to recreation and wildlife values.However, timber sales by the Forest Service stillexceed the level of timber harvest, indicating thattimber producers are simply keeping their investmentgrowing until market conditions improve.The BLM has doubled its timber production overthe same period, perhaps signifying an only recentlyexploited resource. A 1974 BLM forest inventoryidentified three sustained yield unit areas in Montanafor timber production with a total annual capacity of11 million bd-ft. BLM timber supplies, whencompared to those of the Forest Service, constitute arelatively small percentage of available timber. Andthe Forest Service timber accounts for only '/s to Viof the total timber harvest. Like the BLM, the ForestService underwent an extensive transition from havinga single use orientation (timber) to muUiple use, but itoccurred a good deal earlier than BLM's shift. ForestService lands are now subject to an intensive planningprocess by which all resource uses will be allocated inthe future.Water ReservationsMany Montanans don't know that the federalgovernment owns an undetermined amount of thewater in this state. The 1908 U.S. Supreme Courtdecision in Winters v. United States concerningconflicting water claims between a Montana Indiantribe and upstream water users established theprinciple that when they signed treaties with the U.S.government, the Indian tribes implicitly reserved acertain amount of water without which their landwould be valueless. In the 1963 case of Arizona v,California, the court extended this principle tonational recreation areas, national forests and wildliferefuges. The federal government possesses a waterright sufficient to meet the needs of these lands. Thesereserved rights are not subject to state requirementsfor diversion, application for beneficial use orabandonment for non-use. The federal governmentgenerally enjoys priority rights, as the waterreservation is dated to the time the federal area wascreated. In the 1970 Eagle case, the U.S. SupremeCourt ruled that the McCarran Amendment forcedthe federal government into state water adjudicationproceedings, yet the questions of volume and priorityof these federal reserved rights remain to be resolvedin federal court.The implementation of the federal reservationdoctrine could have a substantial impact on theeconomy and environment of the state. Until thisissue is resolved, a good deal of doubt exists over allwater rights claimed since the end of the 19th century.The most difficult question involves the quantity ofwater needed by the Indians and for federal lands.The best answer may be making some minimum flowrequirements for water flowing through these lands.Federal Timber Harvest (Thousands bd-ft)

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 85Federal PaymentsEven though Montana cannot tax federal lands, thefederal government tries to compensate Montana'staxpayers for the burden it creates. Among theseefforts are the mineral leasing payments, the paymentin lieu of taxes (PILT), the 25 percent fund of theForest Service, the Taylor Grazing Act payments, theBankhead-Jones payments, the refuge revenue sharingpayments, and the 5percent proceeds from the sale ofland and materials payments of the BLM. The tablebelow reveals that these sources constitute a fairlysignificant total, and that they have the potential forincreasing as more resources become developed.Each of these payments is somewhat different.PILT is paid according to a formula based on theacreage of federal land in the county and itspopulation, with some federal payments deductedfrom that amount. Funds for PILT must beappropriated in the federal budget every year,however, and over the last few years counties havenot received their full formula payments, which aremade directly to counties at the end of each federalfiscal year. In 1982, Congress authorized the paymentthrough a continuing resolution because ofdisagreement about the proper level of funding.Mineral leasing payments are paid to states with theunderstanding that the money is to be used for areasadversely affected by development of federally leasedminerals. The payments equal 50 percent of theroyalties and leasing fees in that state.The 25 percent fund of the Forest Service wascreated by the 1908 National Forest Revenues Act tosupport schools and roads in the counties that containNational Forest land. It represents 25 percent of grossForest Service revenues. The money is paid to thestate, but Montana law gives two-thirds of it tocounties for the construction and maintenance ofroads. The law prescribes that the rest be used forstatewide support of public schools.The Taylor Grazing Act provides payments to statesin two ways. Under Section 3, 12.5 percent of thereceipts from grazing leases in Taylor GrazingDistricts go to the state; and under Section 15, 50percent of the grazing fees generated on BLM landsother than Taylor Grazing Districts go to the state.Montana then is restricted only in that the moneymust benefit the counties from which it was collected.The Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act allowed thefederal government to purchase submarginal landsfrom private owners during the Great Depression.Now known as Land Utilization projects, the BLMnow administers these lands in Montana. The BLMpays 25 percent of the net revenues from the landdirectly to ten counties in Montana to be spent onschools and roads.Public Law 136 of 1951 requires the BLM to paythe state 5 percent of its proceeds from any sales ofland and materials at the end of the fiscal year. Todaythese payments are much less than they were in pastdecades.The National Refuge Revenue Sharing Act requiresthe Fish and Wildlife Service to pay 25 percent of itsFederal Payments to Montana State and CountiesFY 1977 FY 1978 FY 1979Mineral Leasing PaymentsTaylor Grazing: Sec. 3Taylor Grazing: Sec. 15$6,747,200150.603138,262$7,261,566139,155132.304$7,689,584161,628141,545FY 1980 FY 1981$9,547,850 $12,776,624207,454 181,564185,872 187,1675% of proceeds from sale of land25% fund of Forest Service(amount to state)5,0393,142,794state subtotal25% fund of Forest Service(amount to Counties)Bankhead JonesFish and Wildlife Revenue SharingPILTcounty subtotalGrand total

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 86net revenues from refuge lands to counties in whichthey are located.Over the last few years, these federal landspayments have come under attack in the Congress andby the Government Accounting Office. One GAOreport criticized the PILT payments as duplicatingother payment programs. It claimed state data used indetermining PILT allowed states too much discretionin determining the amount that could filter down tothe counties from other sources. GAO proposed thata single payment be made to counties on a taxequivalency basis. It then assumed a $.28/acre taxablevalue for all federal lands in Montana, based on anaverage of statewide property taxes, and determinedthat the current federal payments greatly exceedtaxable value. In addition, it argued that the ForestService and the BLM often compensate counties forpolice and fire protection through contract, so thatthese services should be considered already paid for.Finally, it argued that mineral royalty payments wereunfair in that the state got 50 percent of a federalroyalty, and then could still tax the leaseholder as ifrevenues came from strictly private sources.Western states took exception to the GAOarguments, since federal payments to the states andtheir political subdivisions represent a significantsource of income. A report by the AdvisoryCommission on Intergovernmental Relations came tothis conclusion in 1978, but refused to recommendchanges. It later said the problem of tax-exemptbuildings and other real federal property was moreserious, concluding that federal payments should bemade to local governments that provide municipalservices to these facilities. The counties may be insome difficulty if current trends continue, however.The payments made directly to counties are shrinkingwhile those made to the state are increasing. Exceptfor the 25 percent fund, there is no real mechanism torequire the state to pass down payments. The GAOestimates only 40 percent of the funds reaches thecounties. The National Association of Counties favorsthe creation of a permanent fund out of which eachcounty can receive its full payment under the formulaprescribed by PILT, essentially making it anentitlement payment.Some problems still exist in the way the federalgovernment compensates governments for its taxexemptproperty. PILT should be maintained at somelevel for those counties that include federal lands notclassified as national forests, or land utilizationprojects. On the other hand, a single statewide taxequivalency-based payment would create a greatburden on the political process and tax assessors, andwould not compensate those areas with special needscreated by federal policy.Access to PolicyMontana and its political subdivisions routinelyengage in agreements with federal agencies in order toavoid duplication and inconsistency in managing thestate's environment. Coordination of these efforts isan extremely important function of government if ahigh quality environment is the goal, but thiscoordinating process is often not noticed. As anexample of the level of activity that goes on in thiseffort, the BLM has been a party to 23 cooperativeagreements with Montana and its politicalsubdivisions since 1977. The Forest Service has 39 ineffect, one dating back to 1959. These agreements or"memoranda of understanding" range in importancefrom deciding whose responsibility it is to feed forestfire fighters when they work on state land, to creatinginteragency committees responsible for major naturalresource policies. Although these agreements do nothave the statutory force of law, they can beconsidered equivalent to contracts betweenindividuals.Few special efforts to administer the environmentcan be made without federal money, so one way stategovernment can keep up on what federal agencies aredoing is to monitor requests for federal financialassistance. The Circular A-95 process had alloweddesignated state agencies a chance to comment onthese requests. It was instituted in 1968 under theIntergovernmental Cooperation Act; in 1973 federalland use plans and impact statements were alsocirculated to the designated agencies. In July 1982, therules governing the A-95 program were rescinded bythe Reagan administration in its efforts to reduceregulatory red tape. The state has replaced it with anintergovernmental review clearinghouse, which willperform many of the same functions.Another way of monitoring federal actions thateffect the environment is through vigilant reading ofthe Federal Register, since all proposed and finalchanges in federal regulations must be printed there.After proposed regulations are published, state andlocal governments, private organizations andindividuals may comment on them before theybecome final.Finally, all major federal actions significantlyaffecting the quality of the human environment aresubjected to the federal environmental impactstatement process. That process includes a review andcomment period, in which the state can argue itsposition on the action. When the action does occur inthe comments made by the state may carry athe state,good deal of weight. Also, increasing number of EISsare being undertaken as joint efforts between state,local and federal agencies, allowing even moreMontana input into the study.In intergovernmental relations between Montanaand the federal government, the Montana Code

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 87Annotated states it is the governor "who. ..is the soleofficial organ of communication between thegovernment of this state and the government of anyother state or of the United States." More often thannot, a governor has to take the initiative in thesediscussions.In addition to these general channels forintergovernmental communications, Montana has animmediate opportunity to influence the long-rangemanagement practices of the Forest Service and theBLM. Both are developing land use plans, and theyare required to seek input from state,tribal and localgovernments.The Forest Service is required by the 1974 Forestand Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act(RPA) and the amendatory 1976 National ForestManagement Act (NFMA) to create long-range plansat the forest, regional and national levels. It is at theindividual national forest level that the state and localgovernments can best influence the process.The law requires that the Forest Service conform toexisting state and local land use plans. Although thestate currently has no statewide plans, thisrequirement is a good reason for local governments todevelop plans for their areas.State involvement in theplanning process comes as public comment, butmeetings between state and federal officials are alsocommon earlier in the planning procedure. The ForestService seems to be expending a great deal of effort tosolicit state input, but the real test lieswhich it will respond favorably to it.in the extent toIn general, the first three national forest plans inMontana have disappointed state officials. The firstwas the simplest, while at the same time retained thegreatest level of specificity. Subsequent plans appearto have become more complex, less site specific, andless readable. This criticism has been raised byMontana officials, and they hope the situation isimproving.The BLM is embarking on a process very similar tothat of the Forest Service.Resource planning areasare replacing grazing allotment areas as the reviewmandated by the Supreme Court is being expanded toconsider all resource management, not just grazing.Like RPA and NFMA, the FLPMA requires extensivepublic involvement in land management decisions.The BLM plans being decided now will have asignificant effect for a long time.The current state administration has established amechanism by which all comments of Forest Serviceand BLM plans by the state's executive branch ofgovernment will be sent under a gubernatorialsignature. It is hoped that this will promote greaterrespect for state comments, and that Montanaagencies will speak with one voice when negotiatingwith the federal government.Now is the time for Montana and its citizens toinfluence federal land management decisions, if theresource planning process is to have the effectenvisioned for it by Congress. It will be easier forMontanans to deal with the BLM and Forest Serviceby getting their wishes incorporated into preliminaryplans than by having to seek variances in establishedplans in the future.Montana is served by national and regionalorganizations that try to promote coordination amonglocal,state and federal governments. Some of themost important of these to Montana in the naturalresource area are the Western Interstate EnergyBoard, the Missouri River Basin Commission, thePacific Northwest River Basins Commission, and theMountain Plains Federal Regional Council. Of a morepolitical nature are the Western Governors' PolicyOffice, the National Conference of State Legislatures,the League of Cities and Towns, the Council of StateGovernments, and the National Association ofCounties. WESTPO has addressed itself to federalnatural resource and energy policies more specificallythan these other organizations, and especially studyingthe states' ability to take part in formulating thosepolicies.Recently, WESTPO and the WINB haveexpressed a great deal of concern over changes in coalleasing. There are people in all of these organizationswho are trying to make Montana's voice heard, eventhough they may be at odds with each other onoccasion.In conclusion, Montana is not as removed from thefederal government as is popularly perceived.Problems remain in these relations, but the answers lienot in isolating ourselves from the federalgovernment, but in improving, increasing, and usingthe potential lines of communication by whichMontana can present its interests.ResourcesAdvisory Commission on Intergovernmemal Relations, TheAdequacy of Federal Compensation to Local Governmentsfor Tax-Exempt Lands, Washington, D.C., 1978; Paymenlin-Lieu-of-Taxeson Federal Real Property, 1982.Culhane, Paul, Public Lands Politics,Future, Baltimore, 1981.Resources for the"Exchange Procedures for Public Lands," Federal Register,Washington, D.C., January 16, 1981.U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Public Lands DiKesI,Washington, D.C., 1982; Public Land Statistics 1982, 1983.U.S. Forest Service, Northern Regional Plan, Washington,D.C., 1981.U.S. General Accounting Office, Alternatives for AchievingGreater Equity in Federal Land Payment Programs,Washington, D.C., 1979.U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Energy and NaturalResources, Workshop on Public Land Acquisition andAlternatives, Washington, D.C., 1981.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 88MONTANA/CANADARELATIONSMontana's environment is sometimes susceptible toimpact from developments arising outside of thestate's borders. Pipelines, which transport oil andnatural gas across the state, and resourcedevelopments, which pollute air and water crossingMontana's borders, are examples. Projects originatingwithin a foreign jurisdiction, namely Canada, posespecial problems for Montana. Two in particular—thePoplar River coal-fired generators in Saskatchewanand the Cabin Creek coal mine in British Columbia—areimportant concerns. This section examinesthe Poplar River and Cabin Creek issues for lessonsMontana might apply to future problems.Boundary WaterCor^flictsWater issues historically have been the most importanttransboundary concerns for Montana, and wateris at the center of the two recent disputes betweenMontana and Canada. The Poplar River and CabinCreek issues grew out of long-standing agreementsover waters crossing the international border, but theyextend to a wider range of present environmental concernsover resource development. They illustrate theneed to develop better mechanisms for handling otherprojects in the future.For both Poplar River and Cabin Creek, the firstaction taken by concerned Montanans was to seekrecourse from the International Joint Commission.The IJC was created in 1909 by the Boundary WatersTreaty between the United States and Canada to helpresolve transboundary environmental problems.Because of its fairly impressive history in dealing withthe pollution of the Great Lakes, there was highexpectation that the IJC would satisfy Montana'sclaims in these contemporary cases affecting thewestern border between the United States andCanada. These hopes proved to be overly optimistic;the commission's actions on the Poplar River and thelikely outcome of the Cabin Creek issue illustrate thelimitations of the IJC. The Montana participants inboth cases may have been disappointed because theymisunderstood the scope and authority of the IJC.The Boundary Waters Treaty came about becauseof the central role of water at the international boundary.Water constitutes a significant part of the boundaryin the east, and many rivers cross and recross the49th Parallel in the west. The treaty affirms the rightof the upstream nation to use all of the waters that

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 89arise within its borders—the so-called "Harmon Doctrine"—butit reaffirms existing downstream rightsbecause both Canada and the U.S. are downstreamusers in several cases. A pragmatic doctrine of "coripariancooperation" has evolved. The treaty alsomodifies the right to divert, impound or use waterthrough the following language: "Waters flowingacross the boundary shall not be polluted on eitherside to the injury of health or property of the other."The commission may find itself in the position,therefore, of equitably apportioning waters at theborder and concurrently determining how muchdownstream pollution may result from a project divertingpart of a river flow. The IJC has done so successfullyin the past.In fact,however, the IJC has no authority tounilaterally enforce the Boundary Waters Treaty. Itsactual powers are quite limited; it works more as anarbiter than a tribunal. The IJC has six members,three appointed by each country. The potential fordeadlock on a decision is evident. But this has notoften been a stumbling block because the IJC hasreached many consensual decisions. The real probleminvolves the relationship among the IJC and the twonations; the IJC cannot act unless it receives a request(called a reference) from both nations, and its rulingshave no power unless both nations agree to abide byits findings. The IJC seems to work best when bothsides have an interest in abating pollution of a sharedwatershed, as is often the case in the Great Lakes.Along the 49th Parallel in the west, however, thissituation is the exception rather than the rule. Usuallyone nation is the upstream beneficiary while the othernation is the downstream victim.Poplar River ProjectSaskatchewan decided in the early 1970s to meet anexpected shortage of electricity in the province bybuilding a coal-fired power plant at a remote site justa few miles north of the U.S. border. The powerplant and its associated strip mine and dam on thePoplar River invoked a storm of protest from Montana.The provincial and national governmentsengaged in prolonged negotiations before turning tothe International Joint Commission for settlement ofthe issue. The furor over Poplar River is subsiding,but many observers are convinced that this exampleset a poor precedent for dealing with future projectsnear the international border.There were misconceptions born of ignorance andnaivete on both sides. Montanans suffered from bothan acute lack of accurate information about the projectand a fundamental misunderstanding of the processCanada uses to approve such a project. Montanaofficials also had an inflated notion of the ability ofthe U.S. to veto or modify the project. Saskatchewanofficials blundered into a hornet's nest they never expectedto find on the sparsely populated Montanaprairie. They did not anticipate the reaction to theproject's impacts, nor did they expect to see the Canadianor U.S. governments so involved in a decisionthey felt belonged to Saskatchewan.The tenacity of opponents in Montana elevated thePoplar River Project to an international issue far outof proportion to the potential impacts of the project.Only the presence of the international border can helpto explain the black-and-white debate that emergedover the issue.The Poplar River Basin covers 3,329 square miles,two-thirds of which is in the United States. Its 1970population of 8,000 persons was divided in about thesame proportion. On the Saskatchewan side the twolargest towns are Rockglen and Coronach, with acombined population of 850 at that time. The townsof Scobey and Poplar in Montana accounted for2,900 residents. Most of the remainder lived on farmsor in smaller towns. The Fort Peck Indian Reservationcovers the southern quarter of the basin.The Poplar River is formed from three maintributaries flowing more or less to the southeast. TheMiddle Fork of the Poplar, with a mean annual flowof 12,900 acre-feet, is the largest fork at the internationalborder. The East Fork contributes a meanannual flow of 11,500 acre-feet and the West Forkadds 3,580 acre-feet at the international border. Alloriginate in Canada, converging in Montana nearScobey. The Poplar River joins the Missouri River inMontana near the town of Poplar. At its confluencewith the Missouri River, the Poplar River has a meanannual flow of 92,560 acre-feet. This is low flow by"river" standards, and this small prairie stream variesgreatly by season and by year.Consumptive uses of the Poplar River in 1975accounted for 10,250 acre- feet. Irrigation, all on theAmerican side, accounts for two-thirds of thisamount. An additional 10 percent is attributed toevaporation from stockponds. The rest is used fordomestic consumption, but because of unpredictableflows. Coronach and Scobey use wells for theirmunicipal needs. No water is dedicated to industrialpurposes. The river has a fair reputation as a warmwaterfishery in Montana.The area's economy depends almost exclusively onagriculture. Cattle and dryland spring and durumwheat are the largest commodities, but some winterwheat, barley, alfalfa, oats and hay are harvestedfrom irrigated soils. A few Scobey farmers andleaders of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation havediscussed plans to expand irrigation in the basin.There have been no results from discussions ofdeveloping potash reserves in the area.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 90Prior to the Poplar River project, the water qualityin the basin was considered generally marginal, withshort periods of critically high mineral concentrationscommon. The water quality usually is adequate duringthe irrigation season, but significant increases in certainpollutants can make the water dangerous to somecrops.Air quality in the basin is typical for the northernprairie. The air is generally of pristine quality (exceptperhaps during the fallowing and harvest seasons),even though the area received only a Class IIdesignation under the U.S. system. Medicine LakeNational Wildlife Refuge, which lies 56 milessoutheast of the plant site, received Class I statusbecause of its designation as a wilderness area underU.S. law.The international border, which runs twelve milesnorth of Scobey, may have little direct ecologicalsignificance, but it meant a great deal in determiningairthe way a project such as Poplar River could beundertaken.Project DescriptionThe Saskatchewan Power Corporation decided in1971 that it could use reserves of lignite coal nearCoronach to supply a power plant. In March 1972,the SPC applied to the provincial government for anappropriation from the East Poplar River for condensationand cooling water. In July, Saskatchewanagreed to reserve 6,000 acre-feet per year for an initialperiod of five years.In November of 1972, SPC engaged consultingengineers to study the feasibility of developing a coalfiredpower plant near its established coal reserves.The first of a series of studies was completed inMarch 1973. The original plans called for the following:- a 1,200-MW coal-fired power plant, composedof four phased 300-MW units located six milessouth of Coronach, at a cost of $126 million;- cooling and circulation water to be suppliedfrom a dam to be constructed on the EastPoplar River. The power plant would be on thewest bank of the reservoir (subsequently namedCooksen Reservoir), approximately one mileupstream from the dam (subsequently namedMorrison Dam). The dam would be about 2.5miles north of the Montana border; a lignitestrip mine six miles northwest of the plant site tosupply fuel. Coal for one 300-MW unit wouldrequire disturbing 160-320 acres per year. Coalreserves covered 21,(XX) acres; only one-half ofthis amount would be needed over the 30-yearlife of the facility;- overburden depths at the mine would average85 ft.; the coal seam would average 10 ft. Theexpected coal yield would be 13,000 tons peracre;- coal would be hauled by trucks to the plantsite, where it would be crushed and stockpiled;- the coal in the ground was expected to be35-40 percent water by weight. Wells would haveto be drilled into the coal seam aquifer andwater pumped out at the rate of 2,000-3,000U.S. gallons per minute. This water would bedischarged into Girard Creek, which flows intoCooksen Reservoir;- the dry weight coal would have a heatingcapability of 7,220- 8,960 Btu/pound, but at theminemouth the undried coal would be only6,000 Btu/pound. The dry coal would average25 percent ash and .8 percent sulfur by weight;- Cooksen Reservoir would initially flood 960acres and store 14,000 acre-feet of water. The1 ,200-MW plant would require 1 1 ,000 acre- feetper year in natural and induced evaporation, notincluding cooling and circulation water. Theamount would be equal to the mean annual flowof the East Poplar River at the internationalboundary;- development of the third and fourth 300-MWunits would require an interbasin transfer ofwater from the South Saskatchewan River oranother source. The reservoir would require constructionof two new bridges and relocation ofone road;- diverted but unevaporated water would bereturned to the reservoir through a series ofcanals and lagoons. Each 300-MW unit wouldrequire 136,000 U.S. gallons of water totransport bottom ash to an ash lagoon, wherethe ash would be precipitated and the waterrecycled. Water returned to Cooksen Reservoirwould be no warmer than 80 degrees Fahrenheit;- air pollution control would consist of dustprecipitators rated at 96 percent collection efficiency,but the system would not include gasconditioning or coal additives. One 500-footsmokestack would serve two 300-MW units;- precipitated fly ash and bottom ash would beburied in natural depressions or worked-outareas of the mine; and- a 230-KV transmission line would connect theplant to Coronach, where electricity would bedispersed through an existing power line.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 91Major ConcernsWater quantity. Downstream users, mostly in Montana,were afraid that their present and future uses(irrigation, domestic consumption and recreation)would be threatened by this new demand. Users ofexisting wells also feared aquifer disruption ordewatering from mine operations.Water quality. Natural evaporation from CooksenReservoir would increase downstream concentrationsof boron, total dissolved solids and other undesirablecompounds. Mine dewatering, stockpile runoff andmine runoff would increase levels of heavy metals inthe surface water. Seepage from the ash lagoons couldalso pollute the groundwaters of the area (which flowacross the U.S. border).Air quality. Mine operations, coal hauling andburning at the plant contribute greatly to dust andother particulates in the air, which also generallyflows toward the U.S. Untreated oxides of sulfur andnitrogen would be released through the smokestack;both of these can damage human health and cropsand other property. The mine's lignite is also fairlyradioactive; the Poplar River Project would emitgreater than average amounts of uranium and strontiuminto the atmosphere.Fish and wildlife. The East Poplar River has been agood warmwater fishery for walleye and northern pikein Montana, but flows in Canada have been too lowand sporadic for these fish even without withdrawalsfor the project. The consumption of water by thepower plant would decrease flows entering Montana,and construction of a dam upstream would alsoeliminate the annual high flows that maintain thechannel regime and flush out accumulated sediment.The fishery would be damaged over a 9 to 10 milestretch of the river below the dam, but total habitat inthe region would be increased by the reservoir.Socioeconomic. The loss of crops from polluted airand irrigation water was the major economic concernof the people in Montana, although some also worriedabout human health hazards from pollution of the airand municipal water supplies. The lost revenues toarea farmers would probably have repercussions onthe social organization of the area.On September 4, 1974, the SPC formallyannounced its plans for developing the power station.It applied for approval for the first 300-MW unitfrom the Saskatchewan Department of the Environmentunder a new procedure for the province. TheMinister of the Environment appointed a Board of Inquiry,which held three days of public hearings on theproject in November. No Montana testimony wasreceived at these hearings. An "informationexchange" about the project occurred between Montanaand Saskatchewan on December 30, 1974. InJanuary 1975, Montana Governor Thomas Judgewrote the U.S. State Department about the PoplarRiver Project, stating environmental concerns in Montanaand requesting IJC involvement. That was thefirst notification the State Department had of theproject, and it was the beginning of internationalnegotiations.Role of the IJCTo Montanans, the Poplar River issue seemed aclassic case for the International Joint Commission.The IJC had been involved in the Poplar River as farback as 1936. Recent actions had also given indicationthat the IJC could expand its jurisdiction to cover airquality and other issues raised over a developmentprimarily affecting water. The Poplar River issueproved to be an extremely controversial one,especially given the relatively small magnitude of theproject.The IJC has been an important actor in the PoplarRiver drama from the outset. In 1936, the MontanaWater Conservation Board applied to the IJC forapproval of a dam for irrigation on the East Fork ofthe Poplar River that would have slightly raised thewater level at the international border. The IJC gaveits approval contingent upon the payment of damagesto affected landowners. The dam was never built, butthe IJC retained jurisdiction over the area untilresolution of the project.This intervention is an illustration of the IJC'soriginal role. The IJC has an adjudicatory role only ifthe issue would materially affect the level of flow ofboundary waters or interfere with the ordinary use ofwater for domestic or sanitary purposes. This role hadbeen restricted to projects that actually backed waterover the boundary. The Saskatchewan power plantproposal introduced entirely different terms.In 1948, the IJC had been asked to study waterrequirements, existing and potential uses, apportionmentand conservation of waters crossing the easternborder of the Milk River drainage basin in the west tothe Red River of the North drainage basin in the east.The commission established the International Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Board to carry out thetechnical aspects of this reference. When the PoplarRiver Project was announced, this board still existedand the IJC assumed an investigative role in the projecton the basis of the 1948 reference.In 1966, the IJC received the Detroit River-St. ClairRiver reference, which requested transboundary airpollution studies for areas along the international

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 92border. It created the International Air PollutionAdvisory Board and subsequently used it to study airpollution impacts of the Poplar River Project in 1975.Thus, since references under Article IX of the BoundaryWaters Treaty had been expanded to allowinvestigation of border problems beyond waterapportionment, there was precedent for the IJC toconsider water quality.Both countries have agreed it is technologicallyimpossible to prevent all pollution of transboundarywaters. Those claiming injury from pollution can seekrecourse in two ways: they may sue for damages inthe upstream country, or they can request a nonbindingadvisory opinion from the IJC. If they sue,they are granted all the legal entitlements of a citizenof the upstream country, but they also assume theburden of proof in connecting the pollution to ademonstrable injury. The 1966 Helsinki Rules on theUses of Waters of International Rivers defines internationalwater pollution as "detrimental change" inquality that could cause "substantial injury" inanother state's territory. Under the U.S. State Department'sinterpretation of these rules, this makes compensationfor damages unlikely in cases where thewater in question is already in a degraded state, orwhere stream flows are intermittent or insubstantial.This problem faced Montana officials in the PoplarRiver case.TimetableIn February 1975, the Board of Inquiry gave itsreport to the Department of the Environment, whichindicated its intent to apply for a national governmentlicense to construct the dam, as required by the InternationalRiver Improvements Act. This would be theonly permit required from the national governmentfor the Poplar River project.On April 29, 1975, the Canadian government conditionallyapproved a five-year license for MorrisonDam. Construction began immediately. The InternationalAir Pollution Advisory Board of the IJCrecommended better particulate control be used in thepower plant. In negotiations held shortly thereafter inwhich Montana officials played a part, a memorandumof agreement was reached in which Saskatchewanagreed to control 99 percent of the particulate,but refused to use sulfur scrubbers.In January 1976, the Poplar River Task Force ofthe International Souris-Red Rivers Engineering Boardrecommended a 50-50 interim apportionment ofwaters and a formal water quality reference to theIJC. One month later, the U.S. State Department proposeda water quality reference to Canada andrequested that dam construction be suspended. InApril, construction of the plant began.Not until August 2, 1977, did the State Departmentand Canada's Department of External Affairs agreeto wording for a Poplar River water quality reference.The reference included consideration of a 600-MWgenerating facility. A short time later, the InternationalPoplar River Water Quality Board was formedto make a technical report to the IJC. Near the end of1977, the SPC requested permission to construct asecond 300-MW facility at the Poplar River site andthe Department of the Environment created thePoplar River-Nipawin Board of Inquiry.In March 1978, the U.S. State Department issued astrongly worded diplomatic note to the Department ofExternal Affairs. It expressed consternation overSaskatchewan's consideration of a second unit beforethe IJC had released its formal recommendations onthe first. A Canadian response stated that it wouldnot delay a decision on the second unit, but assuredthe U.S. that no new construction would begin untilIJC reports were received. The State Departmentstated it was not satisfied with this answer. On May16, 1978, the IJC issued its report on water apportionment,advocating the interim apportionment of theEast Poplar River recommended by the Poplar RiverTask Force, but advising against any final agreementuntil its water quality recommendations could bemade.In February 1979, an interim IJC report noted problemsin the project's ash lagoon system thatprompted changes in its design. The lagoons wouldnow be lined with a clay membrane and ash recirculationwater would be reused in a closed system, insteadof being flushed back into Cooksen Reservoir. Thissystem would be experimental.The International Poplar River Water QualityBoard's report was released in July 1979. The reportrecommended certain water quality objectives to bemet at monitoring stations at the border. It alsorecommended continued surveillance of groundwaterand endorsed the change in ash lagoon design, butgenerally found that the Poplar River Project wouldnot create significant downstream water pollution.Hearings on this report were held in the middle ofOctober in Scobey and Coronach. Much of thetestimony focused on total dissolved solids and boronwater quality objectives, which many Montanans consideredlax.On November 11, 1979, the Department of theEnvironment approved construction of the secondunit. The Saskatchewan Department of the Environmentclosed Cooksen Reservoir to fishing at the endof December because the walleye there showed highconcentrations of mercury.The beginning of 1980 saw the creation of thePoplar River Bilateral Monitoring Committee. It consistedof one representative each from Montana, theU.S., Canada and Saskatchewan, with two ex-officiomembers from local governments, one from each side

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 93of the border. The U. S. Environmental ProtectionAgency released a draft environmental impact statementon the Poplar River Project in July 1980. It wascriticized by all parties involved in the negotiations.In January 1981, the IJC issued its final report onthe Poplar River Water Quality Reference. It citedaccomplishments including monitoring, greater particulatecontrol, lining of the ash lagoons and creationof water quality objectives. It encouraged permanentacceptance of water apportionments recommended bythe Poplar River Task Force and the creation of apermanent claims commission by which SPC could beforced to pay damages for downstream pollution. TheIJC expressed exasperation with this particularreference because of the lack of prior notice, consultationand good background data.The Environmental Protection Agency's final EIScame out in June 1981, containing substantialrevisions. While granting that improvements had beenmade, residents of the Scobey area were stilldissatisfied with its conclusions. The Three CornersBoundary Association tried to convince the EPA tostart over with its impact statement process.The first 300-MW unit of the Poplar River Projectwas commissioned in June 1981, and commercialoperation began the following month.The Poplar River Bilateral Monitoring Committeeissued its first annual report in March 1982. Whilemaintaining that no serious transboundary problemsexisted, this document noted that the first unit hadbeen shut down 27 times in its first six months ofoperation, that there had been 17 accidental spills ofash lagoon and recirculation water, that unusuallyhigh increases in TDS and other contaminants hadappeared in a few groundwater monitoring stations,and that the unit had produced a very opaque smokeplume. The unit's boiler had been a major source ofproblems, as the coal apparently required the injectionof diesel fuel to burn. SPC had also fallen far behindon its construction schedule for the second unit.AnalysisGovernments in Canada and the U.S. now considerthe issue resolved, since the strip mine, reservoir andgenerating facilities already exist, even though thewater apportionment treaty has not yet been consummated.SPC has assured the U.S. that no more unitswill be built at the Poplar River site.Several lessons about the IJC are clear from thePoplar River case. What appears to be a prominent"court of last resort" is actually a rather fragile bodywith four inherent weaknesses. First, the IJC has nojurisdiction until both sides agree to "refer" thedispute. Second, it may become deadlocked on adecision because of the equal number of commissionersfrom each country. Third, neither side isobligated to accept the decision of the IJC. Fourth,there are no clear precedents for adjudication. TheIJC cannot resolve all transboundary problems; it canonly study and mediate some of them.An important problem with IJC process is havingto decide what to refer to the IJC, and when in aproject's development to make the referral. The IJCwas clearly hinting from the outset at the need for awater quality reference on the Poplar River Project;but it did not receive one until Morrison Dam hadbeen constructed. As a result, the project was an existinguse of water in the International Poplar RiverWater Quality Study under the 1966 Helsinki Rules.The IJC's rules of procedure call for prior noticeand consultation between countries for projects suchas Poplar River. Canada and the United States havedifferent opinions about information they have aresponsibility to share, and the IJC has no means toenforce its own definition. Prior notice can be construedas a voluntary effort, rather than a formalrequirement to communicate.The IJC was meant to be a technical fact-findingcommittee, yet its work has major political overtones.Governments have difficulty deciding whether theyshould expect political negotiation or scientific debatefrom the IJC.There were also serious limitations on the quality oftechnical information for the Poplar River project.First, baseline data concerning water quality on theAmerican side were insufficient, since monitoringbegan in earnest only after construction of MorrisonDam had begun. Research on the effects on crops ofincreased boron concentrations in irrigation water wasinconclusive. The ability to predict environmentalimpacts from such projects as Poplar River was inconstant dispute. Experts contradicted each other onsuch things as the long-term environmental costs oflow levels of sulfur dioxide, or the level at which saltsin irrigation water actually damage crops.A related problem with basing environmentaldecisions on purely technical criteria is in assigningeconomic values to environmental qualities. Even theforeseeable impacts do not lend themselves well toassigning monetary values. While current prices forcrops may be known, prices in the future cannot be.The monetary value of human health is oftenmeasured in terms of medical costs, but avoiding costsare obviously only a part of the value of health. It issimply impossible to quantify all the costs andbenefits of a project to determine itsnet effect.Ultimately, some qualitative value judgment has to bemade, even though some decision makers might wantto avoid this on highly volatile issues.Measuring environmental damages and assigningeconomic values within strict scientific and ecologicalparameters can be very difficult, but it may seem easy

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 94compared to the task given the IJC. This tribunal wasput in the impossible position of trying to weigh onlythose damages that occurred on one side of anecologically artificial international border, and to doso under a political microscope.A question of equity arises in such cases wherenearly all of the benefits of the project go to onejurisdiction while the vast majority of the costs areborne by another. The problem is more difficult whenit's an international dispute because there is no appealto a higher authority. Also, the only historical basesfor determining "fairness" at the international levelinvolve force. Transboundary pollution problems providea real dilemma; they don't seem importantenough to declare war, but they're too costly toignore.The substantive issues in complicated waterapportionment problems between Canada and theU.S. have been unresolved for so long that there isnot much hope for finding acceptable, equitable solutions.The U.S. and Canada have been using eachother's water for decades. With limited historicalmonitoring, we may never know for certain who hashad the advantage in using the other country's water.Neither side is likely to accept all the blame.What seems fair to Canadian and U.S. citizens as awhole may not seem fair to the people of Saskatchewanand Montana. States are forbidden by ArticleI of the U.S. Constitution to carry out internationalnegotiations. Consequently, local concerns can loseout to the national interest. The only U.S. perspectivethat counts on the Montana-Saskatchewan bordermay be the one developed in Washington, D.C. TheState Department did not necessarily share all ofMontana's concerns in negotiations with Saskatchewanover the Poplar River Project. When a localissue becomes the subject of international negotiations,concern can arise that local problems might notbe given the respect they deserve. They may even beused as a tradeoff for something that is more importanton a national scale.The people of Montana and Saskatchewan presumethat because the United States and Canada are somuch ahke, the organization of their governmentsmust also be similar. In Montana, internationalnegotiations seemed a viable way to prevent Saskatchewanfrom building the Poplar River project. Thatunderstanding was both incomplete and inaccurate.The provinces of Canada retain much greater freedomto develop their natural resources and economy thando the states under the U.S. Government. The federalgovernment in Canada, therefore, has a more difficulttime imposing its will on its subunits than the U.S.does on its states. The Canadian national governmentserved more as a formal intermediary in negotiationswith Saskatchewan than as an appeals court for Montana.Montana was at a greater disadvantage in internationalnegotiating than itrealized.ConclusionsIf experience is the best teacher, the Poplar Riverproject yields some valuable lessons. Inexperience inCanadian relations and a certain measure of naivetecharacterized the Montana officials who pressed theissue. It is important that when a similar situationarises, Montanans realize the limitations of what theycan accomplish and the points at which they have thebest chance to influence the outcome. A greater commitmentshould be made to promote continuous relationswith neighboring Canadian governments. Someform of liaison should be maintained even as governmentschange, instead of contacting each other onlywhen problems arise. Information should be tradedon a regular basis to fill the need for "prior noticeand consultation" at the planning level.Canadians, as evidenced by their laws and regulations,have not developed as strong a general commitmentto environmental protection as is found in theU.S. Saskatchewan air pollution standards are beingregularly violated at the one Poplar River unit that isoperating. Also, SPC was required to employ the"best practicable technology," rather than the "bestavailable technology" required in the United States.Still, the Poplar River project is more palatable toMontana than it would have been if SPC had notbeen compelled to change its original plans. Given theinternational constraints. Poplar River negotiationsmust be considered a success and some credit shouldgo to the Montana contingent. State and federal officialsbelieve that to demand any further concessionsfor Montana's environmental protection might reopenthe conflict over additional projects on the Saskatchewanside of the border.Montanans did not find the kind of access intoCanadian decision making that they had come to expectfrom their domestic governments. The most successfulchannels for Montana negotiators were thosethat directly involved Saskatchewan officials. Talks atthe U.S.- Canadian level were generally unproductive.National governments concerned with the issue ofprestige seemed to be unwilling to compromise. Directdiscussions between Montana and Saskatchewan officials,who knew what residents of their areas consideredimportant, produced concessions. Face-to-facetalks revealed that neither side was as unreasonable asthe other had expected.This Poplar River issue is often criticized for thelack of citizen participation and the absence of publicinformation on negotiating progress. The Saskatchewangovernment did not favor public involvementin the Poplar River project, feeling that total publicdisclosure of highly technical information offered toomuch opportunity for distortion. But both Coronachand Scobey residents did force revelation of informa-

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 95tion that helped produce a useful dialogue on themerits of the case.The IJC proceedings were a very important safetyvalve for the partisan feelings on both sides. It was aplace to "let off steam" and the legitimacy of the IJCassured local residents that prestigious officialsactually were listening. The IJC was also valuable togovernment officials by reducing some of the publicpressure on them, although it could be argued thatfinal disposition of the project could have been moresatisfactory if the public had applied more pressure inthis direction.Publicity on the issue tended to portray a polarizationof views; Montanans were seen as being totallyopposed to any development in that part of Canada,while the SPC was characterized as coveting this projectat any cost. At times, to be sure, the negotiationsdid break down into a simple case of "us" versus"them." The disputes sometimes became highly personalizedand lost sight of the more important questionsof what was best for the parties involved.Even today, there is vociferous opposition to thePoplar River project by some environmental groups inMontana. These groups were seen by Saskatchewanofficials as a harmful factor in the negotiations. Buttheir influence in the proceedings was limited mainlyto reminding U.S. officials of the importance of theissue to area residents. Some observers speculate thatthis type of militancy could adversely affect Saskatchewan'sapproach to future projects. Such advocacygroups are bound to be involved in future projects,and they too should learn from this example whatthey can reasonably expect to accomplish.Because Montana accepted some environmentaldegradation from the Poplar River project, there maybe an inclination to respond in kind. However, Montanansshould avoid excluding outside parties at theplanning stages of any of their future projects, ineffect making projects with international implicationsnon-negotiable. And the redress of grievances shouldnot extend to repayment in kind, trading pollution forpollution. If Montanans take this arrogant approach,the cycle will escalate and every side will lose. Theonly way we can expect international cooperation inthese cases is through setting a good example byinviting our Canadian neighbors to participate inplanning Montana projects that affect them, and committingourselves to addressing their concerns.A logical —but probably the least practicalapproachto improve Montana's negotiating positionlies in changing the international bargaining system.Granting greater powers to the IJC, allowing Montanato negotiate for itself and forcing greater publicdisclosure of international information are possibleoptions. Such ideas are always perceived as a threat tonational sovereignty, however, which is the source ofpower for every country's government.In the final analysis, Montana is the victim of itslocation more than of the Poplar River project. Montananslive in a border state. Even though we think ofCanada as a friendly partner, we must never forgetthat its actions are beyond our control. If Montanawishes to deal adequately with this fact, it has tounderstand Canada's political processes and the proceduresfor international diplomacy.Cabin Creek MineIn the early seventies, most concern in Montanaover the impacts of coal mining focused on thesoutheastern corner of the state. One importantexception arose in the northwestern corner: adissimilar kind of coal, a different mining techniqueand a mine proposed in another country. These werethe characteristics of the proposed Cabin Creek minein southeastern British Columbia, and Montanansquickly became concerned about the potentialspillover of adverse impacts from this massiveCanadian project.The prospective Cabin Creek mine would straddletwo tributaries of the North Fork of the FlatheadRiver just six miles north of the Canada-U.S. border,at a point where the North Fork becomes the westernboundary of Glacier National Park. Water quality,endangered species, air quality, fish habitat andsecondary development in a wilderness-quality areaheaded a list of international concerns and sparked adialogue that has already lasted a decade. The minemay never open, in part because of the interest thathas been elevated by that dialogue. If the mine doesopen and U.S. environmental concerns remainunanswered, the issue could be raised before theInternational Joint Commission.Project TimetableSage Creek Coal Limited was created in 1968 as ajoint venture between Rio Algon Limited (a subsidiaryof Rio Tinto Zinc, a British mining conglomerate) andPan Ocean Oil Limited (a subsidiary of Marathon Oil,since sold to Aberford Oil of Calgary, a Canadiancompany). Sage Creek Coal Limited explored coalpossibilities on 24,652 acres in the East Kootenairegion of Southeastern British Columbia under 51leases on provincial Crown Land. Engineering andeconomic studies identified the Cabin Creek site as alikely prospect for the recovery of metallurgical-gradecoal for sale in Japan and in other Asian markets.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 96and several Interior agencies, as well as the state ofMontana. As a consequence of the consultations,B.C. agreed to promulgate a detailed licensing planfor the Cabin Creek project and to furnish Montanawith the documents submitted at each stage by thecompany.Sage Creek Coal Limited applied for and receivedapproval of its Stage I proposal (preliminaryenvironmental assessment in 1976). The Stage IIapplication (approval in principle) was contemplatedin 1978, but it was suspended, in part as a result ofsoft market conditions and in part because of strongreaction by the B.C. Ministry of the Environmentagainst the company's proposal to relocate HowellCreek.In 1978 the EPA began a five-year study, theFlathead River Basin Environmental Impact Study(FRBEIS), at the request of Senator Baucus to gatherreliable baseline data to evaluate Montana's concerns.Information exchanges on the Cabin Creek proposalwere made in 1979, 1980, 1981 and 1982 betweenFRBEIS and B.C. officials responsible for reviewingthe mine.Sage Creek Coal Limited submitted its Stage IIapplication to the Coal Guidelines Steering Committeeearly in February 1982, and a copy was sent toMontana. A Montana interagency task force reviewedit and returned comments on the application in May.The Coal Guidelines Steering Committee announcedin June that the Stage II application was incompleteand a decision on the project would be postponed bya month or two. Concerns over a proposed powerlineto serve the mine site delayed the completion of thecompany's application. This information was suppliedto the B.C. government in October. During thesummer of 1982, Sage Creek Coal Limited sponsoredtours of other operating mines in the region for arearesidents and Governor Ted Schwinden.The B.C. government responded to Montana'scomments on the proposed mine in September 1982.Montana's interagency task force forwarded itsfollow-up response in December 1982.B.C. ministries have apparently completed theirrecommendations to the Coal Guidelines SteeringCommittee but B.C. government officials areuncertain when a decision will be announced. B.C.Premier Bill Bennett visited Governor Schwinden inHelena in August 1983 to assure him that Montana'sinput remains welcome.The September 1974 issue of Montana Outdoorsfirstraised public concern over the mine's potentialimpacts. Led by U.S. Representative Max Baucus,Montana officials in 1975 urged the U.S. StateDepartment to express concern to Canadian officials.Mounting concern also led to the creation in 1975 ofthe Flathead Coalition, composed of area groupsrepresenting environmental, wilderness and sportinggroups, chambers of commerce and the League ofWomen Voters.Consultations on Cabin Creek were held in the latewinter of 1976 between Canada's Department ofExternal Affairs and a U.S. interagency task forceorganized by the State Department that included theEnvironmental Protection Agency, the Forest ServiceProject DescriptionThe following are the main elements of the mineplan described in the 1982 Stage II proposal:• total recoverable coal in two hills is estimated at152 million tons;• the deposits contain medium volatile, clean,thermal coal with an average Btu value of12, OCX), 16 percent ash content, 8 percentmoisture content and .5 percent sulfur content;• open-pit mining would extract 2.4 million tonsannually over a mine life of 21 years;• the two hills to be mined straddle Cabin Creek,and Howell Creek runs along the east edge ofthe north hill;• the excavations would each be approximately amile across and 1,0(X) feet deep;• the mine complex would include waste rockdumps, a processing and cleaning facility,loadoutfacilities and a coal dryer;• approximately 281 million cubic meters of wasterock would be displaced over the life of themine;• containment and settling ponds are designed toprevent direct run-off into Cabin Creek andHowell Creek, although B.C. standards allowfor sediment discharges of 50 mg/liter frompond decants;• electrical power (15 MW) would be delivered viaa 230-KV powerline running the length of theFlathead Valley from the north;• coal would be hauled by 59-ton trucks to a spurof the Canadian National Railway at Morrissey,80 km northwest in the Elk River drainage;• the haul road would be widened and paved toaccommodate trucks 24 hours per day, 365 daysa year, with a truck passing any given pointevery 7 minutes;• there would be permanent employment of 530,including 455 mine workers, working in 21 shiftsper week 355 days per year;• a mine-site construction camp would house aminimum crew of 400 for site preparation withsome estimates of up to 1,500 workers whenroad buildings and powerline construction areincluded;• the permanent work force would be expected tobe housed in Fernie, approximate population5,000, located 48 miles north of the mine;• 2,087 acres of land would be disturbed over thelife of the mine.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 97The Coal Guidelines Steering Committee couldstipulate changes in the mine plan if it gives approvalin principle. The plan already has undergonemodifications since Stage I approval was given in1976.The annual production projections have been scaleddown, partly in reaction to a weaker coal market.Because of a re-evaluation of the coal's quality and ashift in worldwide demand, the coal is now targetedprimarily for thermal markets, rather thanmetallurgical. Initially the company planned togenerate electricity at the mine site and envisaged theconstruction of a "new town" to house the workforce at the mine site. The original plan also calledfor the relocation of Howell Creek.Major ConcernsEnvironmental Impact ConcernsThe principal environmental concerns raised by theCabin Creek proposal include: water quality (chemicalleaching, sedimentation, phosphorus and nitrogenloading); air quality (fugitive coal dust, emissionsfrom coal dryer); fish and wildlife (trout habitat loss,threatened and endangered species); andsocioeconomic (pressures arising from settlement,recreation and regional development).Water QualityDownstream water quality has been the mostprominent and persistent of the specific concerns. TheFlathead water system is the key to the area'srecreational attractiveness, which underpins the longtermhealth of the local economy. Initially,there werefears that mining activity would result in heavy metalsleaching into groundwater and contaminating surfacedrainages if containment systems failed. Even smallconcentrations of some of these metals could be toxicto humans and animals. AUhough questions remainabout acid leaching within limited areas of the coalseam, these concerns seem to have been adequatelyaddressed. The major unresolved question involves thelarge volume of sediment that could be released intothe river system with direct impacts on fish and smallorganisms. Increased release of nutrients could alsoaccelerate the eutrophication of Flathead Lake.Risk assessment is at the center of the ongoingdebate. The mining company asserts that itwill takeall reasonable precautions for water containment. ButB.C.'s mine standards are considered by Montanacritics to be far less stringent than Montana's, anddamage may result even from a conforming mine.Air QualityMontana officials feel the review of air qualityimpacts has been insufficient. Emissions from theproposed coal-fired coal dryer, designed to burn60,(X)0 tons of coal per year, are one concern.Fugitive coal dust from blasting, processing andtransporting coal is also a problem. Using computersimulation, Montana predicted that the mine wouldviolate Class I standards in Glacier National Park forparticulates and SO2. Emissions would probably alsoimpair visibility in the Park and could be a volatileissue.FisheriesThe North Fork tributaries are an importantspawning area for game fish in the region. Montanaofficials estimate that 10 percent of the bull trout inthe entire Flathead system spawn in Howell Creekwithin 3 km of the mine site. Originally the mine plancalled for diverting Howell Creek but this wasunacceptable to B.C. environmental officials. Underthe revised plan, this important spawning area maystill be threatened by disruption of groundwaterflows, sedimentation, and increased metals andnutrients.Wildlife HabitatWildlife habitat would be displaced directly by themine and its facilities. An even greater area would bedisturbed by more frequent human activity, and thediverse species that inhabit the region could beaffected. Many of these live within Glacier Park andneed the buffer zone that the Cabin Creek projectmight destroy. Threatened and endangered species,such as the grizzly bear and wolf, dramatize thewildlife habitat argument. Research conducted by theB.C. Ministry of the Environment indicates that thisarea may have the highest density of grizzly bears onthe continent.Socioeconomic ImpactsThe mine evaluation gave only brief attention to thesocioeconomic component, due primarily to theabsence of any established or planned communitiesnear the mine site. The work force and the increase innumber of associated residents and visitors would,however, exacerbate the impact on wildlife habitatand further degrade the wilderness quality of the area.One issue is the increase in recreational pressureresulting from the improved access out of the valley,both north to Fernie and south to Polebridge, justacross the Montana border. Another issue is thepotential for random settlement, or squatting, on theMontana side by mine personnel not choosing tocommute from Fernie.The company argues that the town of Fernie hasthe capacity to comfortably absorb the workerpopulation. Fernie residents supposedly welcome themine because a decline in other local mining activityhas reduced the area's economic growth. A few of theworkers might choose to commute from the Montanaside of the border during the summer; the money they

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page Iwould spend in Flathead Valley communities mighthelp offset their impact.Regional DevelopmentSocioeconomic issues help reveal the underlyingreason for the high level of apprehension over CabinCreek. Cabin Creek could be the first of five mines inthe B.C. portion of the Flathead Drainage. Someobservers believe more mines would become"necessary" in order to justify the high cost ofopening Cabin Creek. Cabin Creek could be theimpetus to regional development, the real fear of arearesidents. This is why the specific impacts of thismine— air and water quality, fisheries andwildlife—assume such importance.Southeast British Columbia already produces 15million tons of coal per year from five mines. Thechanging coal market plays havoc with the fortunes ofeach mine, and the current soft market raisesquestions over the propriety of opening up stillanother mine, especially one so distant from existingmines and settlements. Because the provincialgovernment helps municipalities to provide forsocioeconomic costs by allocating mine royaltyrevenues from the region, the revenue any one mineproduces is shared by all communities. There isconcern whether or not the region can support widelydispersed mine development. There is sentimentamong some community leaders for an orderlyprovincial plan for southeast regional coaldevelopment.Roles and ActorsCabin Creek ranks as one of the longest runningplays on the Montana environmental stage. Nearly adecade has passed since the warning carried inMontana Outdoors crystallized public opinion.Opposition in 1974 was strident, vocal andwidespread, even while little was known for certainabout the mine proposal. The Flathead Coalition wasconvinced from the start that even the best possibledesign could not ensure against a catastrophicaccident polluting the North Fork. Mine opponentsinitially sought a legal or political remedy, perhaps aninjunction or some symbolic assertion of Americanmuscle.There was a moralistic tone in the Cabin Creekopposition, in part because virtually all of the benefitsof the mine would go to Canada, while most of therisks would be taken by Montana. Additionally, thecoal was not destined to help resolve an American (orCanadian) environmental dilemma or energy crisis;Cabin Creek coal was targeted instead for a Japanesemetallurgical market. Finally, the mine was viewed assimply a search for profits by a multinationalconglomerate oblivious to the rights and concerns ofdownstream people. The Montana position seemedunambiguously correct, and Cabin Creek inspiredMontana politicians to scramble for the high groundof leadership in the cause of protecting the Flathead.But, over the years, the black-and-white has turnedto shades of gray. Only a few of the principal actorsin Montana today continue to view the issue in thestark moralistic terms of 1974. It gradually becameclear instead that effective opposition would dependon a greater appreciation of the complexity of borderrelations and far more flexibility in bargaining.Information exchanges and proposals for jointmonitoring have largely displaced confrontation anddirect political pressure.Modifications in Montana's approach to CabinCreek seem to reflect lessons learned by officialsabout the political factors at work in the mineapproval process. As goals changed and politicaltargets shifted, bargaining tactics adjusted as well.The tendency to adapt was reinforced by incrementalsuccesses in influencing decisions and promptingadjustments to the mine plan.Complexity of the ConflictIt is important to stress that there is not and neverhas been a single Montana position; Cabin Creek hasinvoked a spectrum of responses and prompted anarray of strategies.Threats to air and water quality standards set bythe U.S. federal government raised national concerns.The Environmental Protection Agency and the StateDepartment were drawn into the issue; the ParkService and the Forest Service were affected becauseof the potential impacts on their jurisdictions.Members of the Montana congressional delegationensured that these agencies exercised their authority.State agencies also were engaged, including theDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, theDepartment of Natural Resources and Conservationand the Department of Health and EnvironmentalSciences. Task force coordination was provided atfirst by the office of the lieutenant governor (BillChristiansen and Ted Schwinden under GovernorTom Judge). The responsibility shifted to thegovernor's office under Ted Schwinden.Local opposition sprang from a collection ofenvironmental, conservation, sportsmen and civicgroups. They initially banded together as the"Flathead Coalition" and struck a defiant poseagainst the mine. Without the early stridency of thelocal opposition, the case might never have beencarried so long or so effectively at the state or federallevels.

EQC Eighth Annual Heporl - Page !FRBEIS RoleThe Flathead River Basin Environmental ImpactStudy (FRBEIS) was responsible for the detailedreview of the Cabin Creek mine proposal. TheFRBEIS Steering Committee played the central role incommunicating environmental concerns over the mine,in setting up information exchanges, and in engagingactions by responsible officials at the state and federallevels.FRBEIS was established in 1978 under thesponsorship of Senator Max Baucus, and was largelya response to the Cabin Creek mine proposal. Thestudy was designed to gather baseline data on theresources, ecological systems, and potentialenvironmental degradation of the Flathead Basin, aregion known for its wilderness values andrecreational attractiveness. The near-pristine waterquality of Flathead Lake and its tributary river systemwas recognized as crucial to maintaining a highquality of life and a healthy economy in the region.Over its five-year course, the study spent $2.5million, supplied mainly by the EPA, with financialand in-kind assistance from other federal and stateagencies. Most of the funds were used to studyaspects of the natural and human environment,including lake and river ecology, fisheries, wildlife, airquality, economics, and population. The research wasconducted primarily by state agencies, universityresearch units, and private consulting firms.The FRBEIS Steering Committee had 15 members,including representatives from the Montanagovernor's office, local governments in the basin, theConfederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, and thefederal National Park Service, Forest Service, andEPA. There were two at-large citizen slots and oneeach for representatives of industry and the FlatheadCoalition.The findings of the Flathead River BasinEnvironmental Impact Study serve as a benchmarkfrom which to judge the potential impacts of a varietyof activities in the Flathead drainage. Most of theseactivities would occur on the Montana side of theborder, including logging, mineral and energydevelopment, recreational and second-homeconstruction, and industrialization. But Cabin Creekis the most prominent single threat, and the study hasgiven legitimacy to the opposition to the mine bydocumenting the workings of the Flathead Basin'snatural systems and the potential for environmentaldamage posed by the mine.Despite their strong concern over the mineproposals, the FRBEIS Steering Committee did nottake a public advocacy stance relative to naturalresource development in the basin. Instead, steeringcommittee members believed the study's credibilityand effectiveness depended on generating accurate,reliable, scientific information. This informationcould then be used by decision-makers as a basis forintelligent public policy.As FRBEIS conducted its studies, information exchangeswere set up between FRBEIS and B.C. agencies.FRBEIS coordinated the review of documents filedby the company with the agencies. The review wasperformed by the FRBEIS study consultants and stateagency personnel, but all official correspondence tookplace between the governor's office and the premier'soffice. FRBEIS did not have an official political role,but it provided the information—and sometimes thepressure— for state and federal action. FRBEIS helpedprovide the scientific legitimacy, the resources and theinterest needed to continue the discussion on CabinCreek over the years.Special StatusThe Flathead Basin boasts a number of featureswhich argue for special status for the regionalenvironment. The preeminent claim is based onscenic, wildlife-rich Glacier National Park, whichborders the North Fork of the Flathead River. GlacierPark is united with Waterton National Park inAlberta to form an International Peace Park. The twoparks have also been designated as a World BiosphereReserve under a United Nations program.Conservationists have emphasized the need for abuffer zone to protect the integrity of these parklands. The U.S. Interior Department recently citedGlacier Park as the most threatened national park dueto a variety of resource developments and proposalson surrounding lands. In British Columbia, intensivelogging is underway along the tributaries of the NorthFork. This area is adjacent to the western border ofWaterton Park and the northern border of GlacierPark.The upper Flathead drainage hosts three federallydesignated wilderness areas: the Bob Marshall, theGreat Bear, and the Mission Mountains. The U.S.Congress has added the North, Middle, and Southforks of the Flathead River and part of the mainstemFlathead River to the Wild and Scenic River System.Recent land-use activities in the Flathead drainage,however, have affected the region's specialenvironmental character. The Flathead Valley hasexperienced two decades of steady population growth,accompanied by increased development on both publicand private lands. The cumulative impacts of timberharvest, oil and gas exploration, rural and suburbansettlement and tourism are becoming evident in thebasin. Would Cabin Creek impose a qualitativedeterioration of a wilderness environment, or justconstitute another quantitative increment in aninexorable process of change? Some British Columbiaofficials have expressed this latter interpretation and

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 300suggest that agencies in the U.S. should consider theirown policies, rather than focusing primarily on B.C.'senvironmental standards.Information ExchangesThe Montana strategy has adjusted to thisargument. The state has downplayed the assertion thatB.C.'s standards are flawed because Montana's arestricter. The official B.C. position has been that nomine would be approved that might threaten the B.C.environment, irrespective of internationalconsiderations.Information exchanges have allowed the same pointto be made more quietly at the administrative level.The data collected by FRBEIS have helpedenvironmental officials in B.C. stress the need formore stringent emission, discharge and reclamationstandards. Montana actors have recognized that theirbest strategy is to capitalize on the professionalismand sincerity of their Canadian counterparts and tohelp the B.C. officials and conservation groups topressure their own elected officials.Stage IIReviewThe Cabin Creek mine approval process seemed toreach a critical juncture in 1982 with the submittal bythe company of the required Stage II mine plan forB.C. government approval. Outright rejection wouldprobably mean the end of the company's aspirationsin the region; approval in principle might pave theway to the mine's opening.The Environment and Land Use Committee, whichincludes several ministries of the cabinet, makes theStage II decision. The committee acts on therecommendation of a subcommittee composed ofsenior civil servants from the same ministries. Thisprocedure was established after environmental groupscomplained that coal review seemed highlydiscretionary.The Stage II review has been drawn out for a year.Part of the reason for the lengthy review is theextensive scrutiny of mine details by environmentalspecialists in B.C. and FRBEIS. Another reason couldbe the sensitive nature of the issue has made thegovernment reluctant to decide one way or the other.Montana sent 115 pages of comments on the mineplan to B.C. in May of 1980. B.C. has acknowledgedMontana's concerns, but it has not providedsubstantive responses to all of Montana's pointsbecause it regards some to be the proper subject ofStage III, its permitting stage.The Cabin Creek mine sponsors are equally vexedby the delays and the prospect of further deferral bythe government. Their invitations to Montana officialsto visit the Cabin Creek site and other operatingmines in the region are evidence of their eagerness towin Montana's approval. The company certainly doesnot feel that it is on an inside and fast track torubber-stamp approval of the mine.Montana officials have paid great attention to themine plan at Stage II because of the analogy that hasbeen drawn with the environmental impact statement(EIS) process in the U.S. There is concern thatapproval in principle at Stage II will createmomentum for final approval at Stage III, even ifmine design problems have not been or cannot beresolved. Poor coal markets might shelve the proposalfor the immediate future, but many Montanansbelieve Stage II approval would allow a final "goahead" at a later date.The parallel drawn between Stage II and theEIS process, however, does not necessarily hold. Theexperience with the B.C. coal guidelines is too limitedto conclude that Stage II approval is tantamount tofinal mine plan approval. The B.C. cabinet ministershave great discretion to reject, modify or impose newconditions on a mine even after Stage II approval isgiven. Election of a new government in the spring of1983, for example, could have forced a complete reevaluationof the mine plan; the entire coal guidelinescould have been abrogated and the company forced tostart anew, since no operating permits would havebeen granted. The mine sponsors would not have thesame recourse to the courts as they would for acomparable project in the U.S. A significant timelapse in securing Stage III permits might likewiseundo approval, even without a change in government.Montana has pursued a dual strategy in pressing theissues at Stage II. One goal has been to kill theproject by raising conditions that could make themine economically infeasible. Failing this, the secondgoal has been to focus attention on environmentallyquestionable mine plan particulars that will needpermit approval so that they cannot be overlooked inlater monitoring.The mine sponsors are caught in a dilemma. Theproject might be terminated if the company fails toreceive approval at this time. The cabinet, for its part,is less likely to approve a controversial mine that hasno assured market. On the other hand, the companymight have a better chance of marketing the coal ifthey can demonstrate cabinet support of the project,through Stage II approval.There is pressure on the government to encouragethe mine plan at Stage II because the company hasalready spent more than $10 million on the project. Anegative decision would expose the government tocriticism that it is obstructing a project at a time whenthe provincial economy is in recession. But withequally good reasons to deny the mine, the

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 101government may avoid any firm stand and grant ahighly conditional approval in principal at Stage II,without committing itself to future political orfinancial support.Canadian SystemCabin Creek provided some interesting lessons forMontana officials. Two major features of theCanadian political system operate differently than theAmerican counterpart: confederal and parliamentary.ConfederalMontana's initial assumption was that thegovernment of Canada would be bound to honor theBoundary Waters Treaty. However, under Canada'sversion of federalism, the federal government's abilityto enforce the treaty is limited. The confederalprinciple gives the provinces comparatively greaterleverage against their federal government than thestates have in the U.S. Control of natural resources inparticular is a largely provincial decision. TheCanadian federal government plays little role inmatters of leasing, royalties or reclamation for naturalresources such as coal. Federal government leverage,in the form of air and water pollution controlstandards, is also weaker than in the U.S.Discussions held in the summer of 1982 with officialsrepresenting Canada's Ministry of the Environmentleft Montanans with the impression that theCanadian federal government could act as acounterweight to the B.C. government if the CabinCreek mine application were approved under conditionsunacceptable to Montanans. Remarks attributedto Environment Minister John Roberts encouragedmine opponents to see a potential ally in the federalgovernment of Canada. Roberts appreciated the supportgiven Canada's position on control of acid rainby the Montana congressional delegation, especiallySenator Baucus, who has strongly supportedtransborder pollution control. Roberts met withBaucus and gave "assurances" that Montana's interestsin the issue would be considered. He repeatedthese assurances in informal remarks at Glacier Park,and inferences were drawn that the Canadian federalgovernment could and would force amendment ofunacceptable portions of the mine plan or would vetothe mine plan.The legal disadvantage of the federal government inCanada is compounded by its present political andelectoral weakness in the western provinces; anyattempt to block Cabin Creek would be viewed asanother of the "intolerable acts" that have spurred aseparatist movement in the western provinces. TheB.C. and Canadian governments are not likely tobecome openly divided over Cabin Creek, notwithstanding the impression that federal andprovincial governments routinely battle over resourceissues.Further, the U.S. State Department would bereluctant to exacerbate this split by forcing an action.Short of the formal intervention of the IJC, there islittle reason to expect intervention by the Canadianfederal government.ParliamentaryMontanans felt B.C. environmental regulationswere seriously flawed by comparison with Montana'smore stringent laws. The B.C. government relies uponguidelines rather than specific laws. There are nocomparable substantive grounds for approval ordisapproval of a mine plan.The "government of the day" is legally sovereignunder the parlimentary principle. It is not strictlybound either by past law or by treaty. Policy is notsusceptible to judicial review as it is in the Americancheck-and-balance system. The Canadian remedy ispolitical, not judicial: the election of a newgovernment.Public participation in Canada is governed by thesame principle. Montana is noted for its populistroots; its constitution of 1972 expanded and entrenchedrights of public participation in meetings, hearings,and access to public records. The growing use of theenvironmental impact statement has enhanced thisprinciple. In the parliamentary system, the provincialgovernment can exercise its discretion on whether tohold hearings even on particularly controversial subjects.Montana's RoleMontana's efforts have earned it a considerable rolein the decision process and the working cooperationbetween Montana and B.C. officials has beenremarkable. The promulgation of a detailed coal minereview process by B.C. has opened the door fororganized Montana review. Agency informationexchanges have served to clarify and press Montana'sconcerns. These have helped change the substantivemine plan to eliminate or mitigate some adverseimpacts (e.g., decisions about Howell Creekrelocation, mine-site electrical power generation, anda new town). The changes have been stronglyendorsed by the B.C. Ministry of the Environment.The protracted examination of the Cabin Creekproposal seems to have led to the partial

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 102Americanization of the B.C. environmental reviewprocess. The Boundary Waters Treaty allowed thestate to raise questions about toxic metals,acidification, phosphorus loading and loss of fisheriesunder the language of Article IV: "...waters flowingacross the boundary shall not be polluted on eitherside to the injury of health or property on the other."But once the legitimacy of these claims wasestablished, it became possible to raise environmentalconcerns on related aspects of the project: air quality,endangered species and socioeconomic impacts.Montana seems to have succeeded in using theboundary waters agreement to raise a long list ofconcerns normally found in an EIS in the U.S.Persistence seems to have put B.C. somewhat on thedefensive, shifting the burden to B.C. to defend theproject against the imposition of U.S. standards.B.C. has been very cooperative even though it isunder no obligation to do so. Montana has beenallowed to participate almost as though it were a B.C.agency. This same status was not extended toCanadian citizens or the Canadian federalgovernment. B.C. could have adopted Saskatchewan'sposition in the Poplar River Project that no Montanacomment would be appropriate until the province hadmade its decision.RecommendationsAlmost all Montana parties have conceded thatBritish Columbia has the right to approve the mineeven if the mine plan fails to satisfy all of Montana'sapprehensions. Montana Governor Ted Schwindenhas been quoted as saying: "It is not Montana's placeto tell B.C. how to develop its coal reserves."Nonetheless, his communications to B.C. havecontinued to stress that the province has an obligationto avoid damaging Montana's environment.A recourse to political muscle in the face of a B.C.green light for Cabin Creek might be highlycounterproductive. First, it might make no differencein the decision to open or operate the mine. Second,concerns about the mine's operation might provegroundless. Third, therefore, the positive contactsestablished in the current negotiations will be lost.If Montanans are patient, the coal mine may die anatural economic death. Even with Stage II approval,the company may not be able to secure the necessarycontracts or to develop the mine in the absence ofsubsidies from the government that are not likely tobe forthcoming. B.C. officials privately admit that thecurrent economy affords no prospective markets forCabin Creek coal.It seems to be far more sensible to continue withthe quite successful process of working in good faithto make the mine plan as environmentally acceptableas it can possibly be and to minimize the problems ofassociated growth and development in the region.Montana should also not abandon the game afterhelping to set the rules, because there will be otherprojects and other transborder environmentalcontroversies. It is likely that B.C. will continue toaccommodate Montana's concerns because, in sodoing, the province avoids intervention by theCanadian federal government.Cabin Creek is an issue remote to the immediateconcerns of the B.C. government, just as the coalregion is remote from the provincial capital inVictoria. It is true that the B.C. government does notshare the view of Montanans that Cabin Creek is amajor and serious international border issue. In partthis is because the government has been coping withproblems involving the Alaskan and Washingtonborders. The government also has not given CabinCreek priority because it is preoccupied with economicPart of Montana's frustration over Cabin Creek istraceable to the inertia built into the official chain ofcommunication that includes the U.S. StateDepartment and Canada's Department of ExternalAffairs as intermediaries between Montana and theB.C. government. The official channels ofcommunication are often redundant because of thelimited jurisdiction of Canada's federal governmentand time-consuming because of the four-corneredrelationship. Montana officials feel that they need tobe able to deal directly with their provincialcounterparts. Montanans also feel that the StateDepartment views Cabin Creek as a low-priorityproblem. Once persuaded to pursue the matter, theState Department must formally work throughExternal Affairs to influence the British Columbiagovernment. External Affairs has little incentive topress the issue because of the poor state of generalrelations between the federal government and thewestern provinces. Both External Affairs and theState Department have more important issues totackle, the feeling goes, and Montana's interest inCabin Creek could be bargained away in a package ofbilateral border issues.It is fair to say that the Flathead River BasinEnvironmental Impact Statement helped the federalactors to see their duty more clearly. Left to its owninitiative, the State Department might not have spentmuch time on this remote international border issue.The FRBEIS ended in the summer of 1983, and theMontana Legislature established a Flathead BasinCommission to continue monitoring the regionalenvironment. The Flathead Basin Commission willattempt to sustain FRBEIS-type activities on a modestscale. Some study components still require completionand others need periodic revision.Joint monitoring ofthe quality of the Flathead River at the international

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 103border will also be required. Continued informationexchanges with B.C. will be useful. But mostimportant is the development of some sort of jointmanagement region with the cooperation of B.C.,recognizing the values of the region's ecosystem.B.C.'s willingness to consider Montana's concerns forfish and wildlife, air emissions, water discharges andreclamation suggest that common criteria fordevelopment could be agreed on. The creation of theFlathead Basin Commission will at least provide forongoing dialogue in that direction and might help todefuse future border issues.Present funding levels only allow the commission toexist; it still needs to raise the revenues for researchand monitoring. Aside from its budget, there may bepolitical liabilities associated with the Flathead BasinCommission. Its creation might refocus attention onthe issue of basin development on the Montana sideof the border.There is another question beyond that of the valueof a Flathead Basin Commission: What are theabilities of state government to deal with Canadianborder issues and other events in Canada? The taskforce of state officials working under the FRBEISumbrella gained immeasurable experience in thenatural resource decision processes of one province inCanada. Despite federal government supremacy in thefield of international relations, it was state officialswho practiced the art of international environmentaldiplomacy.One lesson is that the state needs to take theinitiative and apply continuous pressure whenMontana's environment is affected, even though it hasno formal international authority. There will besimilar border disputes in the future and Cabin Creekshould not become just another ad hoc experience.The state needs to benefit from the lessons of CabinCreek and Poplar River by developing an ongoingcapacity to monitor Canadian events and issues. In1981, the governor created an Ad Hoc Committee onCanadian Relations, composed of agency heads. Thisgroup needs to consider ways to accomplish this goal.order to build the storage system. No such permit isrequired for the proposed coal mine at Cabin Creek.It is not likely that the issue could reach the IJCuntil and unless some physical evidence of actualdamage is done, a point when it could be impossibleto reverse the decision on the mine. Montana wouldhave to convince the State Department to request areference; the federal government of Canada wouldhave to run roughshod over B.C. in order to do thesame. It is not clear, therefore, whether resort to theIJC would be a sign of compromise or an admissionof failure.Success on an issue brought before the IJC dependspartly on the publicity and the pressure that can bemarshalled, but more on the good will of thegovernments involved, especially the government ofjurisdiction. The Boundary Waters Treaty must beread primarily as a good-faith statement ofcooperation between the two nations, not an iron-cladguarantee of protection against water pollution.More than one observer has attempted to portraythe Cabin Creek issue as a single dispute betweenupstream and downstream users. But the existence ofthe international border makes the problem far morecomplex and emotional. It is an extreme case of thepolarization between economic development andenvironmental protection, since the region of benefitand the region of cost are in separate nations.ResourcesThe 49th Parallel Institute,Bozeman, 1983.Sharing the 49th Parallel,ConclusionThe Cabin Creek mine could one day open despiteprotest from Montana. The state might then attemptto utilize the International Joint Commission, but itimportant to remember the limitations of the IJC, asreviewed earlier in this chapter.The Cabin Creek case is not even comparable to thePoplar River issue. The federal government ofCanada had leverage over the Poplar River project tobring in the IJC because the province had to complywith the International Rivers Improvement Act inisInternational Joint Commission, Rules of Procedure andText of Treaty, Ottawa, 1971.Metcalfe, William, Understanding Canada, New York, 1982.Montana Dept. of Natural Resources and Conservation,Final Report on Water Uses In the Poplar River Basin,1978.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Impact of CanadianPower Plant and Flow Apportionment on the Poplar RiverBasin, Washington, D.C., 1981.Van Loon, Richard and M.S. Whittington, The CanadianPolitical System, Toronto, 1981.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 104TOURISMMontana's rich outdoor recreation resource is onereason millions of travelers visit the state each year.Glacier and Yellowstone national parks are two majorattractions for tourists, but the state's other extensiveopportunities for land and water activities help bringin people who drive, hike, hunt and fish,or who justwant to view a variety of scenery unmatched in thelower 48 states.It's not surprising that by some measures,Montana's travel industry is the fourth largestindustry in the state. In 1979, the last year statetourism was thoroughly studied, around 20,000employees served nearly 3.5 million travelers; thataccounted for the fourth largest employment group inthe state, behind Trades and Services, Governmentand Agriculture. The travelers, both resident and nonresident,spent about $900 million in the state,generating over $170 miUion in personal income: thefourth largest generator. The state taxes thesetravelers paid amounted to more than $20 million,with most coming from the state tax on motor fuel.These figures represent a poor tourism year whenhigh prices for and uncertain supplies of gasolinereduced the number of visitors. Tourism has grownsteadily since that year. The figures also cover thetravel industry as a whole. Tourism, or travel for thepurpose of pleasure, accounts for about 40 percent ofthe total, according to a study completed for theMontana Department of Highways.Many of the travelers had no specific vacationdestination within Montana; often they were passingthrough to another state. Those that did have aspecific Montana destination concentrated in severalareas. Five counties—Yellowstone, Gallatin, Flathead,Cascade and Missoula— received more than 50 percentof the money spent by travelers. The next fifteencounties gathered about 40 percent of the receipts,leaving only about 8 percent for the remaining 36counties.A variety of outdoor activities kept tourists entertainedin Montana. A 1979 study, conducted by theMontana Bureau of Business and Economic Research,surveyed residents of the state and found that morethan three-quarters devoted at least a portion of theirleisure time to outdoor activities. The three mostoften mentioned were picnicking (77 percent), walkingfor pleasure (72 percent) and driving for pleasure (71

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 105percent). These were followed by swimming (66 percent),fishing (59 percent), camping (57 percent),hiking and climbing (38 percent) and hunting (35 percent).Although Montana attracted 3.5 million tourists in1979, experts in travel promotion believe that Montanais just reaching a small percentage of potentialvisitors. According to a 1980 report by Davidson-Peterson Associates, "...the type of vacationexperience offered by Montana is the type of experiencemany people want. There is demand for outdoors,nature-related vacations. There is also demandfor relaxation, fishing. Old West history andatmosphere and sightseeing."The consultants estimated that Montana travel promotionefforts have managed in the past to attractonly 5 percent of the pleasure trips taken by residentsof the prime U.S. market (the area within areasonable automobile trip of Montana). Montana'spenetration of the prime Canadian market was slightlybetter at 13 percent, but that was still considered to below. The report concluded that the major reason morevisitors didn't come to Montana was a lack of informationabout the state's vacation opportunities. Abetter travel promotion program, it said, could successfullytap a large pool of potential tourists.In fiscal year 1980-1981, Montana ranked 46th inthe nation for state spending on travel promotion. Inthe region only Idaho spent less, while the province ofAlberta spent ten times as much. The 1983 MontanaLegislature agreed to nearly double state spending fortourism advertising; the results of that effort probablywon't become apparent until the 1984 summer season.While tourists from all states and many foreigncountries visit Montana and the other Old Weststates, more than two-thirds come from the Far West,Mountain West and Great Lake states, according to astudy done for the Old West Regional Commission.Residents of Washington were the most commonvisitors to Montana, followed by those from California,Wyoming and Idaho. The study also showed thatof the five Old West states (Montana, Nebraska,North and South Dakota and Wyoming), Montanawas the most popular principal vacation destination.ResourcesDavidson-Peterson Associates, Montana Tourism MarketingDevelopment Plan, New York, 1980.McKinsey & Company, Promoting Economic Growth forMontanans, 1982.Montana Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Attitudes:Montana Outdoor Recreation Survey, Missoula,Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, 1983 MontanaStatewide Compreliensive Outdoor Recreation Plan, Helena,1983.Oblinger-McCaleb, Old West Region Non-Resident Traveland Recreation Survey, Denver, 1980.Western Analysis, The Economic Impact of Tourism inMontana, Helena, 1980.Montana has a strong existing tourism industrywhich is an important part of its economy. Theattractiveness to tourists is based on the outdoorresources that few states can match. As these types ofoutdoor recreation opportunities grow more scarce inthe U.S., Montana will gain an additional advantagewhen it competes for tourists. For this relativelypollution-free, renewable industry, futuredevelopments look promising.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 106SUBDIVISIONSThe division of land can be a critical indicator ofhuman impact on the environment. As more land isused for human habitation, less is available to meetother human resource and ecosystem needs. Once landis divided into small parcels and put under intensehuman occupation, it is unHkely that it will ever beused again for agriculture, mining, timber or wildlifehabitat. In this way the subdivisions many Montananslive in represent an irretrievable loss of a potentiallyrenewable resource— the land.Montana has been blessed with magnificent naturalbeauty. The state's economy and its citizens' mentaland physical health benefit greatly from it. Yet, it isprecisely that beauty that makes Montana particularlysusceptible to the documented trend of people movingaway from the urban environment and into the ruralor "natural" one. Most of the time these people areescaping the congestion, crime or complication ofurban living, but they don't want to give up theamenities it provides. Eventually, so many peoplemove to the natural environment, it loses some of itsbeauty, the core of its economic base (the land as arenewable resource), the high quality of its air andwater, and the ability of existing politicalorganizations to provide fundamental services.Subdivision LowsThese problems have not gone unnoticed. Montanahas two statutes that are the predominant means forregulating subdivision activity: the MontanaSubdivision and Platting Act and the Sanitation inSubdivisions Act. The Subdivision and Platting Actestablished the current survey and record-keepingrequirements for land divisions, as well as regulatingland development by allowing local review andapproval of subdivisions. The Sanitation inSubdivisions Act requires the Montana Department ofHealth and Environmental Sciences (DHES) to reviewthe water, sewer and solid waste facilities ofsubdivisions. If a subdivision meets establishedstandards, the department issues a Certificate ofSanitary Restriction and construction can begin.As initially passed, the Subdivision and Platting Actdefined a subdivision as any division of land into twoor more parcels, any of which contains ten acres orless. It exempted from review those divisionsintended: for sale or gift to the owner's immediatefamily; for court-ordered splits; for mortgagepurposes; and for strictly agricultural purposes. In

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 1071974, an exemption for boundary adjustments andrelocations was added. It also required review for anynew condominiums, mobile home parks orrecreational vehicle parks. All local government unitswere required to adopt subdivision regulations thatmet the minimum requirements set by the Departmentof Community Affairs (DCA). Funding for the reviewwas to come from fees collected from the subdivisiondevelopers, who would also submit any environmentalassessments required. The definition of a subdivisionwas later amended to include parcels up to 20 acres,and an exemption from review was added for anoccasional sale, which allowed landowners to split offone parcel each year. Other important amendments tothe Subdivision and Platting Act were the inclusion of"public interest" criteria for local government reviewand approval of an expedited review process forminor subdivisions (those with fewer than six lots).Most recently, the legislature added minimumrequired local subdivision regulations, which removedDCA from the subdivision review process andreflected an executive reorganization of thatdepartment.The Sanitation in Subdivisions Act also has beenamended since its passage to bring the definition of asubdivision within the two acts into uniformity. Butfamily transfer, occasional sales and boundaryrelocation exemptions from Subdivision and PlattingAct review are still subject to DHES review ofsanitary facilities.Abuse of the exemption clauses and the 20-acreexemption from comprehensive review has led toconstant criticism of Montana subdivision laws. Thedifficulties in determining when land division shouldbe subject to public scrutiny and when the benefitsfrom public review outweigh its costs, not to mentionthe distribution of those costs, makes the proper roleof government in subdivision review a controversialtopic.In addition, our heritage gives us a politicalphilosophy that links private property rights to ourability to be free. Many people feel that anyweakening of the freedom to acquire, utilize anddispose of property rights is a direct attack on theirliberty. Land division, its review and control aretherefore complex and volatile political issues.Evaluatingthe ProblemAttempts have been made to measure the amountof land that has been divided without public reviewsince the subdivision review acts took effect. TheMontana Environmental Information Center (MEIC),a nonprofit environmental research and advocacyorganization, conducted subdivision inventory projectsfor several counties in1975 and 1980. The MEICresearchers undertook the arduous process of visitingcounty courthouses and adding up the number offilings, lots created, and acreages divided, andcomparing subdivision plats which undergo reviewwith certificates of survey which are filedfor divisionsnot requiring local review. They found that about 90percent of land divided was not being reviewed andconcluded that an alarming amount of environmentaldegradation was taking place. Critics of the MEICinventories have charged that only the largest, mostabuse-prone counties were inventoried and that thefindings had been wrongfully transposed on the stateas a whole. Others criticized the MEIC work becausethey felt it was done by people unknowledgeableabout what they were doing.Another attempt to quantify the level of unreviewedsubdivision, and apparently the only governmenteffort to do so, was the 1977 DCA report. LandDivision in Montana. It essentially confirmed workdone by the MEIC. While the two studies did notarrive at identical totals, the differences between themare within a reasonable margin for error andattributable to different time periods. Land Divisionhas been criticized for using the same methodology asthe MEIC used, but both are the foremost works insubdivision inventories in Montana, and their figuresaccepted as "in the ballpark." Some time has passedsince the DCA study, so this EQC report will updateits information using a different approach.The partial analysis EQC prepared assumed thatyou can get a valid indication of the use of the familytransfer and occasional sale exemptions comparing thetotal acreage reviewed by DHES for sanitaryrestrictions with the acreage reviewed by localgovernments as minor or major subdivisions. With theassistance of the DHES staff, EQC looked at theperiod between January 1, 1977 and December 31,1981. To make our study more useful, we analyzedthe data by county.One problem with our study is that it contains nomeasure of the use of the 20-acre exclusion, mortgagerelease, or court-ordered exemptions. Ourmethodology may also count some divisions approvedat the state level and later abandoned before beingrecorded, or not yet recorded (developers have twoyears to do so after DHES approval). It is alsopossible that some divisions may have been recordedimproperly at the county level without DHESapproval. It is possible that a minor inaccuracy wasintroduced into our study from a subdivision beingredivided within the five-year period. The filesweresometimes inconclusive as to whether a certificate ofsurvey was filed under a family transfer or occasionalsales exemption. For that reason, our study combinedthe two categories. A rough estimate based on theexperience of the DHES staff and the trend of clearlyidentifiable parcels is that of these two exemptions,

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 108about V) of the lots and Va of the acreage filed undercertificates of survey are attributable to the familytransfer. Boundary adjustments and amended platsweren't included in our study, because they shouldnot result in the creation of new divisions of land.Advantages of our approach include the fact thatonly land that people will probably be able to occupyis counted. Some of the land recorded as divided inclerk and recorder offices around the state can't meetthe DHES requirements for sanitary restrictionremoval. Also, the Subdivision Bureau must reviewremainder parcels under 20 acres, so these are alsoincorporated into our data.Overall, it is impossible to have perfectly validstatistics on the rate of land division in Montana,because of the sheer number of reviewing agencies,discretionary interpretations of land divisions, thepossible permutations of exemption filings, and othercomplications created by the laws. Nevertheless, somemeans for measurement is necessary to determine ifland divisions allowed through the use of exemptionsare a significant problem. This study may shed somelight in that direction.Our study found a correlation between subdivisionactivity and the general state of the economy. Landdevelopment in the state dramatically increased during1977 and 1978, peaked in 1979, decreased sharply in1980 and probably bottomed out in 1981 and 1982 ata level below what it was in 1977. It would alsoappear that as economic times get tougher, the familytransfer and occasional sale exemptions make up alarger percentage of the land market.A final conclusion drawn from this study is thatsubdivision activity in the state of Montana is anuneven problem. Only 19 counties contain over 1,000acres divided in the last five years. Of these, eight hadover 5,000 acres, and four over 10,000 acres. Overone-half of the subdivision activity occurred inFlathead, Missoula, Ravalli and Yellowstone counties.If Gallatin, Lewis and Clark, Cascade and Lakecounties are added, the figure jumps to 75 percent,and the 20 most subdivided counties contain 93percent of the acreage divided in the state. With themajor exception of Yellowstone County, land divisionwould also seem to be a regional phenomenon, withonly five of the 20 most subdivided counties in theeastern portion of the state. The most intensesubdivision activity occurs along a line runningthrough Flathead, Lake, Missoula and Ravallicounties. The need for subdivision regulation mayseem to vary geographically, but this may not be thecase. In the east, subdivision activity, while notcontinual, can still explode with the boom-and-bustcycle of energy development. The need for regulationis still there.A recent example is Richland County. This areaexperienced an economic boom from the developmentof oil and gas in the Williston Basin. Unfortunately,the local government was overwhelmed by the initialdemand for land use planning and subdivisionregulation. As a result, significant unregulatedsubdivision occurred before the towns of Sidney andFairview were able to respond. Fairview has beeninformed that DHES will approve no more lotsbecause its sewage treatment facility is overloaded. InSidney, the county sanitarian informed DHES that sixmajor subdivisions and several minor ones were beingconstructed without department approval.In the western part of the state, subdivisionproblems are often the result of long-termdevelopment of the area. In time, the environmentalcosts have become economic costs, especially forfuture developers. An example of this twist of fate isthe North Blaine Estates.North Blaine Estates is a proposed subdivision inFlathead County consisting of 29 single-family unitlots,14 of which would be situated on the north shoreof Lake Blaine. Studies have indicated that the lake isbecoming eutrophic, primarily because of nutrientloading from earlier development on the lake. TheWater Quality Bureau of DHES recommended thatlittle if any additional nitrogen pollution should beallowed in the lake. The Subdivision Bureau staffestimated that the sewage disposal system proposed bythe developers would eventually allow 90 percent ofthe nitrogen in the sewage to find its way into LakeBlaine. The developers did not want to mitigate thisimpact, so the project was denied. Because the denialhinged on technical evidence that was subject todispute. North Blaine Estates challenged the denialbefore the Board of Health and EnvironmentalSciences. The board ruled that the department wasjustified in its denial.The future of North Blaine Estates will dependupon whether its developers feel they can afford thecost of upgrading its sewage treatment system. If theydon't, it will be the first time a major subdivision isblocked solely because itlacks DHES approval. Thedevelopers continue to argue that they would notpollute the lake; they consider it unfair that theyshould be denied a permit while so many others arealready living around and polluting the lake. Betterplanning might have forestalled this problem andproven less expensive. On the other hand, it isdifficult to predict what would have happened had theland been divided through exemptions; it is probablethat some additional pollution would have occurred.Certain areas in the western part of the state arebeginning to feel the long-term effects of poorlyplanned and unplanned development. Some of thatreckless development occurred before the currentsubdivision laws were passed. Some of it continuestoday despite the laws.Unfortunately, this report cannot examine how the20-acre exclusion from the definition of a subdivisionlot has been used to develop land. The only way toobtain empirical evidence on this isto visit the state's

Five-year Subdivision ActivityEQC Eighth Annual Report Page-

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 110county courthouses, but that is costly and timeconsuming.Laclc of this evidence is a seriousproblem. What little information on the use of the20-acre split does exist indicates that the amount ofland divided into 20-acre to 40-acre lots is probablyequal to the amount of land divided by all othermeans. For example, the 12,000-acre Royal TetonRanch in Park County was recently completelydivided into 20 acres or larger lots. Such an examplemay not be typical, but it would seem to belie theinitial justification offered for the 20-acreexemption—that the low demand for 20-acrehomesites and the low level of density did not warrantlocal review.But whether the review of these homesites iswarranted is secondary to another problem. It is oftennot used for the creation of 20-acre homesites, but tofacilitate the further division of very large parcels intomuch smaller lots. It would be almost impossible todivide the Royal Teton Ranch quickly using onlyfamily exemptions and occasional sales. By initiallydividing the parcel into 20-acre lots, the developerscan use other exemptions to further divide the landinto four-acre and five-acre lots, which are moremarketable. According to many planners across thestate, it is this aspect of the 20-acre exclusion that iscausing the most significant land use problem.for leapfrog development. The current method oftaxing property for agricultural use can alsocontribute to the division of lands into five to 40-acreparcels in areas sufficiently far from cities. Montana'sGreenbelt Act allows agricultural land to be assessed,not at its market value, but at its value foragricultural production. The act was passed becauseof a belief that the agricultural community wasbearing an unfair tax burden when speculation forcedthe assessed value of land to skyrocket. Some peoplefelt it would help to preserve agricultural land, allowfarmers and ranchers a better chance to make a living,and keep them from being forced to sell the land. Themain problem with the law has been the difficulty ofconfining the special agricultural assessment tolegitimate agricultural enterprises. A lot eligible forthis property tax break must be either over five acresand used under one of three rather broad criteria foragricultural purposes, or provide at leastthe owner's gross annual income.15 percent ofThis leapfrog development amplifies the traditionalimpacts associated with suburban sprawl. Largerhomesites mean larger quantities of agricultural landlost to second home sites and two-horse-and-a-cowhobby farms. This is especially true when the landspeculation market is more profitable thanagriculture, which is now often the case. To be fair,however, some small-lot buyers have proven that evenrelatively tiny farms can be extremely productive; notall subdivided land is lost to agricultural production.LeapfrogDevelopmentThe 20-acre definition not only facilitates an escapefrom review for large pieces of land, it alsoencourages inefficient land use. For example, the priceof an unreviewed large homesite that is a significantdistance from town may be comparable to a muchsmaller one that has been meticulously reviewed anddeveloped according to local guidelines. In addition,potential buyers could be informed that they mightbegin construction earlier on the exempted lot becauseitneeds no review, and that the larger lot could evenpay for itself if the buyer wanted to use exemptions tofurther subdivide the parcel. The larger lot may seemto be a better buy than the smaller one. When largelots far from the municipal limits are inhabited inpreference to smaller, more traditionally subdividedlots close to the city, a ring of open space resultsaround the city or town. This phenomenon is knownas "leapfrog development."Exemptions are not the only economic incentivesBecause the value of land as wildlife habitat isseldom reflected in its market value, this use can belost when property is divided. As land develops in aleapfrog fashion, the once remote habitats becomeimpacted. People living in rural subdivisions mostoften utilize septic tanks for their sewage disposal,and experts disagree about the possible long-termeffects these can have on groundwater quality. Whileleapfrog development may diffuse the pollutionentering the groundwater, it could increase thenumber of groundwater sources polluted. The energycosts associated with suburban sprawl in terms oftravel and electrical transmission is even greater fromleapfrog development than from traditionaldevelopment. The same is true for the provision ofgovernment services. Even when the developers orhomeowners in rural areas are willing to pay theincreased cost of roads or fire protection, the servicesthey receive could seem inadequate by urbanstandards. Without good planning and review, homebuyers are more likely to have long-term problems.What might look like a desirable place to put a homemay be located in a rock slide area, floodplain, orarea of extreme fire danger. And more land isconsumed for human residence at a higher long-runcost than would probably have occurred throughdenser, better planned development.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 111SolutionsAs is often the case in environmental regulation,Montana law has been based on the myth thatenvironmental degradation is caused by a few largeand obvious abusers. In this case, the villains werebelieved to be big-time land developers and multi-unitsubdivisions. The law has succeeded in making thiskind of development better regulated. However, theenvironment is probably more affected by thethousands of landowners who, seeking only to makeup for a poor crop or keep up with inflation, sold afew acres to a pleasant family that only wanted anicer place to live,or more room for their kids. All ofthese perfectly legal land transfers, insignificant bythemselves, are the major land use problem inMontana. Changes in existing laws could helpalleviate this situation.As of October 1981, 26 Montana counties hadcompleted some kind of a countywide comprehensiveplan, and ten more had partially completed plans.Eighty local planning boards exist in Montana, and 39of them employ staff. This would seem to indicatethat the planning process is slowly becoming anacceptable function of government. Of course,planning can only be successful if the desire andability to follow it through exists. Various proposalsfor saving our land resource may offer some hope,especially such ideas as agricultural districting,conservation easements, tax incentives and purchaseor transfer of development rights.Planning and subdivision review can be expensive.As currently practiced, subdivision review is paid forby developers. It is argued that since developersinitiate the process, they should be the ones to pay forit. Seen in a different way, however, the benefits ofplanning and subdivision review go to all of us, andwe all help cause the problem. Suburban sprawl andleapfrog development aren't the result of simple greedand avarice on the part of land developers. Theyoccur as the result of the desire of more and moreMontanans for a piece of "God's country," andescape from urban problems and taxes.What is clear to nearly everyone concerned is thatthe Subdivision and Platting Act and the GreenbeltLaw are not working as they should to encourageorderly, planned and efficient development. Thelegislature grapples with this fact nearly every session,but has yet to arrive at a solution acceptable to themajority of legislators. Although a poor economy hasslowed subdivision development, the problemsidentified in this section are still significant and needresolution. With the immediate pressure ofdevelopment relatively low, perhaps now is the time toseek solutions.ResourcesMontana Dept. of Community Affairs, Differential Taxationand Agricultural Land Use, Helena, 1978; Land Divisionin Montana: The Subdivision and Platting Act inPractice,1977.Montana Environmental Information Center, Down toEarth, Helena, February 1975 and November 1980.Montana Legislative Council, Montana's Greenbelt Laws,Helena, 1980; Preservation of Agricultural Lands: AlternativeApproaches, 1976.U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, Untaxing OpenSpace: An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of DifferentialAssessment of Farms and Open Space, Washington, D.C.,1976.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 112WASTE DISPOSALThe Department of Health and EnvironmentalSciences (DHES) regulates management of municipalsolid waste, hazardous waste, junk vehicles,radioactive waste and septic tank pumpings, withdifferent rules and programs for each. This sectiondescribes the problems associated with each of thesekinds of waste and the state's strategies for control.Solid WasteThe solid waste generated in Montana increaseswith population growth. But as disposal of thisgarbage becomes more centralized, managementproblems change or even decrease. Since 1967, it hasbeen state policy to phase out open-burning dumps, toconsolidate waste into fewer sites,and to make thesesites cleaner, safer and more aesthetically acceptable.In the past 13 years, over half of Montana's morethan 500 dumps have been closed or upgraded tosanitary landfills. About 227 solid waste landfills arecurrently in operation in Montana, 165 of which havebeen licensed by the DHES.While most of the state's solid waste is disposed ofat sanitary landfills, owners of five or more acres ofland may discard their refuse on their property aslong as it poses no public health threat and creates nopublic nuisance. In addition, commercial incineratorsburn a small amount of solid waste in Montana.Many disposal sites are being phased out throughthe establishment of countywide container programs,in use in 21 counties. Large receptacles are placedaround a county where residents can deliver theirrefuse. A collection service transfers the garbage tolarge sanitary landfills. Each countywide containerprogram eliminates between five and ten disposalsites.To become licensed by the DHES Solid WasteManagement Bureau (SWMB), landfills must beoperated according to certain state rules, patternedafter guidelines of the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA). The bureau must ensure that thegeology and hydrology of proposed sites are suitablefor containing waste, as well as approving operationand maintenance plans. Waste at landfills must becovered with soil at the end of each operating day(local officials may decide hours and days ofoperation); blowing litter must be controlled; sites

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 113must be fenced; most firesare prohibited (but permitscan be obtained to burn wood waste); and leachate(contaminated moisture) must be prevented orcontained. If landfill operators have difficulty meetingthese standards, they may apply for variances fromthe rules.The SWMB assists waste management systemoperators in complying with the rules and monitors allwaste management systems. Although the inspectorsfrequently notice rule violations and receivecomplaints of blowing litter and fires from residentsnear landfills, violations are usually not consideredserious enough to warrant fining the operators.Violators are generally notified of problems and urgedto cooperate, although court injunctions have beenused occasionally to force compliance. The bureaualso strives to help unlicensed operators solve theircompliance problems. A few local governments hadchallenged state standards for landfill maintenancebecause of the expense of compUance. But the largemajority of government and public health officialsand adjacent landowners, and the DHES and EPAwere against any relaxation of these standards. Theyargued that less stringent rules would exacerbateproblems of odors, flies, disease, bears, rodents, andair and groundwater pollution.Easing sanitary landfill standards could also havehad a secondary effect. Only six new disposal siteshave been approved by DHES since the beginning of1977. The major reason so few new sites have beencreated is landowner opposition to having "dumps"for neighbors. Looser rules could have made newlandfill sites even more difficult to find.A serious problem associated with solid wastedisposal is the contamination of groundwater bylandfill leachate. Landfills established prior toSWMB's 1969 review and licensing requirements aremore likely to contaminate groundwater. Some ofthese landfills are located in drainage areas withpermeable soils and shallow groundwater. The bureauhas required about 15 of these landfills, includingmost larger sites, to monitor hydrologic conditionsaround the site. Monitoring requirements aredetermined for existing landfills on a case-by-casebasis after inspection by the SWMB hydrogeologistand a consulting hydrologist. All new sites and siteexpansions may be required to install monitoringprograms. If pollution in monitoring wells exceedsstate standards, the landfill must be closed andcapped with an impermeable material, and a systeminstalled to mitigate contamination of groundwater.While disposal sites and collection services may beowned privately or publicly, most Montana landfillsare municipally owned. Montanans also have theoption to form refuse disposal districts.Thirty-twodistricts have been created, 18 of which arecountywide. The other 14 cover parts of counties. Thecounty commissioners must approve the district,the consent of district residents and in accordancewithwith state law. The district may operate its owndisposal service or hire one, and may own or lease adisposal site. Fees, usually $1 to $4 per family permonth, are collected by the district, based on theamount of garbage generated.The Solid Waste Management Bureau, in additionto managing the disposal of refuse, isrequired to"...conserve natural resources whenever possible."The bureau has had some success in this area.Controlled salvage operations are allowed, with localand state approval, on over half the landfill sites inthe state. To encourage recycling of waste materialsbefore they reach landfills, the bureau providesinformation to recycling businesses and oftencoordinates the sale of recyclable material.The largest barrier to expanded recycling inMontana is the high cost of transporting recyclablegoods to distant markets. The generally low cost ofwaste disposal and fluctuations in demand forcommodities are further impediments to recycling inMontana. But as resources and energy become moreexpensive, recycling is expected to increase. In 1981,the Associated Recyclers of Montana surveyed thestate's 52 commercial recycling centers. The 48respondents reported that 9,732 tons ofgoods—aluminum, steel cans, bottles, newspaper andother paper—had been recycled that year. Thisrepresented less than 2 percent of the waste generated,but Montanans were paid $2.5 million for the items,which would have cost $292,000 to discard. Theamount recycled after 1981 may be higher, since glassand cardboard recycling have greatly increased.Unlike some states, Montana has no large-scalerecycling of plastics, tin cans or many other recyclablecommodities. Recycling of waste oil is encouraged bythe bureau and by DNRC's Energy Division, however.In October 1982, the division pubHshed a brochureaimed at making the public aware that waste oil isvaluable, but that it can threaten water supplies ifimproperly discarded. The best use for waste oil is tore-refine it for lubricating oil. Businesses across thestate collect used oil,but since Montana has no oil rerefinery,waste oil is usually used for weed and dustcontrol. The Energy Division believes a re-refinerymay eventually become viable as a stronger marketdevelops for used oil.To encourage resource recovery and energyconservation, the DNRC Renewable ResourceProgram gave $300,000 to SWMB to help cities andcounties plan resource recovery operations. TheDNRC added $350,000 in 1981 to fund the design andimplementation of resource recovery projects in someMontana cities; funded projects were for theincineration of solid waste to generate steam andelectricity for commercial and industrial use. Studiesfor this type of facility have been completed or areunderway in Livingston, Bozeman, Billings, Helenaand Missoula. Over half of the state's garbage wouldbe utilized if the refuse from just seven counties

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 114(Flathead, Cascade, Lewis and Clark, Yellowstone,Gallatin, Missoula and Silver Bow) was incinerated insimilar facilities. The bureau feels that more energyconversion facilities will be built in Montana duringthe 80s as technologies improve and landfill andenergy costs rise.Livingston, the first area to receive implementationfunds, has the state's only operating waste-to-energyconversion facility, which began operating in April1982. Burlington Northern has a 20-year contract tobuy steam generated by the plant. A $3.1 millionindustrial revenue bond paid for construction of theplant. The loan should be repayed in 15 years and theplant should last 25 to 30 years. Operating andmaintenance expenses are paid through a $12 per ton"tipping fee" paid by the garbage haulers.Unseparated waste is fed into the incinerator, whichconsumes about 78 percent. The remaining inert ash,about four truckloads per day, is delivered to thelandfill. The volume of waste sent to the landfill hasbeen reduced by 60 to 80 percent. The conversionfacility's air pollution controls keep emissions to wellwithin state standards.Park County's waste and 60 percent of the garbagefrom Yellowstone National Park are burned at theplant. The facility can burn 72 tons of waste per day,but it is presently operating at about 54 tons per day;it receives even less waste when Yellowstone's summerseason ends. Negotiations are underway to obtainwaste from Bozeman and Big Timber. Withoutadequate amounts of refuse, the plant may operate asfew as four days per week.Western Montana College in Dillon has completedplans for a similar facility, and is consideringinitiating pre-design work. Billings isfinalizing aproposal for pre-design and implementation of awaste-fired conversion facility; studies in Helena andBozeman concluded that facilities in those cities maynot be prudent at this time. Missoula's city council,having recently completed a preliminary study, is nowdeciding whether to pursue a grant for further studyand pre-design.Reducing the amount of waste generated is a goodlong-range method of safely managing waste whileminimizing cost and maximizing resource and energyconservation. Source reduction decreases the volumeof solid waste, reduces the need for resourceextraction, demands less land for waste disposal, andrequires less energy for the manufacture and disposalof goods.Hazardous WasteHazardous waste is "...any waste or combinationof wastes that poses a substantial danger, now or inthe future, to human health or the environment andwhich therefore cannot be handled without specialprecautions." Hazardous waste, as presently definedby EPA and SWMB rules, includes substances thatare flammable, highly reactive or toxic.Montana's130 hazardous waste generators produced about 5,716tons of hazardous waste in 1981.Substances produced included toxaphene, PCB's(polychlorinated biphenyls), hydrofluoric acid andasbestos. Industries producing these included woodproducts, agriculture, chemicals, petroleum refining,primary metals (mining, smelting, refining), fabricatedmetals (plating and polishing), and electric utilities.Toxic and hazardous wastes are more strictlyregulated than solid waste. The state's HazardousWaste Management Act (HWMA) follows EPA'smandate for implementing a hazardous wasteprogram. Since Montana has followed EPAguidelines, EPA may soon fully authorize theprogram, pending rules to be adopted by the bureauconcerning permitting procedures, technicalspecifications for facilities, and financialresponsibilities applicable to facilities.The SWMB temporarily permits twenty-fourfacilities to treat, store or dispose of their ownhazardous waste; thirty companies have been assignedEPA identification numbers to allow them, totransport hazardous waste. But Montana has nocommercial facihties to treat, store or dispose ofhazardous waste.Almost 90 percent of the state's hazardous waste ispresently disposed of within the state. Most largegenerators in Montana dispose of most of their wasteon their premises. These on-site disposal facilitiesmust meet the same stringent standards as wouldcommercial facilities. However, any new hazardouswaste disposal rules that would raise on-site costs maycause Montana generators to increase their off-sitedisposal. Increasing concern over long-term liabilityfrom hazardous waste may also encourage off-sitedisposal. But as requirements become more strict anddisposal costs increase, more generators may beunable to afford proper disposal, on-site or off.dumping may then increase. Realizing this is apotential problem, the EPA and state officials areIllicitdeveloping plans to help small businesses comply withthe new regulations, and to ease direct financialburdens from the regulations.Current regulations require that records onhazardous waste be maintained from its generation todisposal. This manifest system of cradle-to-gravetracking is handled by the generating, transporting,and disposal facilities. Each year, generators send theSWMB reports of all regulated hazardous wastes theyproduced in the state. These reports are comparedwith the records of disposal facilities to assure that allwastes were properly disposed. This process isdifficult with 10 percent of Montana's hazardouswastes being disposed of in other states (chiefly Idahoand Oregon).

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 115Another effort to improve the handling ofhazardous waste is a new statewide "waste exchange"program, which informs potential customers ofindustrial by-products they might be able to use.Interest in the waste exchange program is currentlybeing gauged by the Montana Chamber of Commerceunder a contract with the SWMB.The hazardous waste program operates on 75percent federal and 25 percent state funds. TheSWMB may also receive aid from the federalSuperfund to help identify, report and cleanabandoned hazardous waste sites. Any use ofSuperfund dollars for site cleanup will require a sitespecificstate match. The sites in Montana that maybe eligible for Superfund support are Rocky MountainPhosphate at Garrison, Anaconda reduction works inAnaconda, Anaconda refinery in Great Falls, Libbyarea groundwater, Milltown area groundwater, andSilver Bow Creek from Butte to Warm Springs.Other WasteProblemsAs a result of amendments to the federal 1980Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),mining wastes are exempt from the HWMA. SinceMontana's law cannot be more restrictive than thefederal law, the SWMB cannot require properdisposal of hazardous mine wastes. AlthoughMontana does have mine reclamation laws, thosepolicies do not directly address hazardous wasteproduced at processing sites located away from themines. Water quality may be seriously threatened atthose sites,but processing industries are not requiredto plan for the problem. Only documented violationsof water quality standards can force processing plantsto improve their handling of hazardous waste. By thetime those violations have been proven, considerabledamage may have already occurred.The bureau must also address the problem of thedisposal of certain pesticides and pesticide containers.Quantities of some of these regulated substances aretoo large to be deposited in sanitary land-fills. TheSWMB offered to collect these materials from 1969 to1978, but high costs and unsuccessful attempts tolocate a pesticide disposal site in the state led totermination of the program. No accurate estimateexists of the annual generation of pesticide waste, assources of contamination are too widely distributedacross Montana. When the disposal program wasoffered, about ten tons per year of pesticide wasteswere accepted by the bureau; volumes are estimated tobe at leastthat high now. Discarded pesticidecontainers could number more than 350,000 per year,although only a small fraction of these would requirespecial treatment.A further problem, perhaps even more serious thanthose already mentioned, is the improper disposal ofhazardous waste produced by numerous unregulatedsmall-scale generators. Hazardous waste rules applyonly to generators of at least 1,000 grams per month,or at least 1 kilogram per month of "acutelyhazardous" waste. Hospitals, medical labs, schoolsand small businesses are among the generators usuallyexempt from full regulation. Since the state's lawcannot be more strict than the federal law, smallgenerators remain free to discard their unidentifiedwaste at landfills, on private property, or down thedrain. The SWMB has no idea how much hazardouswaste these generators produce, and has no means toobtain that information. Small generators are notrequired to label their wastes or to maintain manifestdocuments, but the bureau would like to makespecific requirements for small quantity generatorsand acceptors. Some landfills now refuse smallquantity hazardous waste because of concerns overlong-term liability. Unfortunately, stricter rules mightmean higher costs, and illicit dumping by smallgenerators could result.Junk VehiclesIn an effort to rid the countryside of unsightlyvehicle graveyards and to conserve iron, steel andenergy, Montana initiated the Motor VehicleRecycling and Disposal Program in 1973. Theprogram has provided for collection and recycling ofwell over 70,000 tons of scrap motor vehicles.County commissioners or their appointees (sheriff'sdepartment, sanitarian or a separate agency)administer the program. Each county has a vehiclegraveyard and has organized a program to best suitneeds. County programs provide free collection ofvehicles, but do not compete for vehicles with privatewrecking facilities. At the start of the junk vehicleprogram only 120 wrecking facilities were licensed foroperation in the state. Today there are 200. Theexistence of the county programs encourages privatewreckers to offer the same free vehicle collectionservice to the public. The industry must aggressivelyseek out vehicles before the county does. Salvagingparts from vehicles stored in county graveyards isprohibited. This keeps the county from directlycompeting with the private used parts industry.When county yards accumulate at least 200 vehicles,the wrecks are crushed and shipped to out-of-statescrap processors and steel mills for recycling.All junked vehicles, county vehicle graveyards andprivate wrecking facilities must be screened frompublic roadways. Also, county vehicle graveyards andprivate wrecking facilities must be licensed by theits

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 116state.County and state officials are responsible forenforcing requirements of the license, yet keeping tabson all yards is extremely difficult. No laws limit thenumber or size of yards.The junk vehicle program is funded primarily byjunk vehicle disposal fees, which are assessed whenvehicles are registered. The program collects 50' fromeach motor vehicle license fee, $1.50 from eachvehicle title transfer fee, and $50 for each wreckingfacility license. The program also collects revenuederived from the sale of junked vehicles to recyclingfirms.The program is quite successful. Besides aestheticimprovements, the program contributes to a qualityenvironment in other ways. Substituting scrap iron forvirgin materials in steelmaking results in an energysavings of 74 percent, a reduction of air pollution by86 percent, and reductions in water pollution andmining wastes by 76 percent and 97 percent,respectively. What is more, the program generatesenough revenue to be virtually self-sustaining.Radioactive WasteLittle radioactive waste is currently being producedin Montana. No large quantities are generated, andlow-level waste is produced in only small quantities byhospitals, research labs, the university system, andsome geophysical surveyors.Disposal of "large quantities" of radioactive wasteis prohibited by law in Montana; disposal of low-levelwaste is allowed. In 1980, voters expanded the lawthat bans radioactive waste disposal by adoptingInitiative 84, which included uranium mill taiHngs inthe disposal ban. The 1981 legislature reacted to theban by creating Referendum 89, which Montanavoters ratified to eliminate I-84's ban on radioactivewaste produced by the refining of uranium.As a result of the Federal Low-Level RadioactiveWaste Policy Act of 1980, disposal of low-levelradioactive waste is the responsibility of the state.That act also authorizes states to enter into regionalcompacts for radioactive waste disposal. Montana isnow officially in the Northwest Interstate Compact,which guarantees Montana a long-term depository forradioactive waste.Some of these substances are currently disposed ofin other ways. Montana State University in Bozemandeposits its waste in a university-owned site. Whenthat site is full (expected in about five years), MSU'sradioactive waste will be disposed of commercially.Some low-level wastes, mostly rapidly decaying and inliquid form, are rinsed down drains. TheOccupational Health Bureau of DHES sees noproblem with this practice, and it feels that low-levelwastes presently pose no environmental or publichealth threat in Montana.PumpingsCareful disposal of septic tank pumpings isnecessary to avoid polluting water supplies.Montana's 150 tank pumpers collect waste not onlyfrom septic tanks, but also from chemical toilets andoil sumps. Records are unavailable on amounts thatpumpers collect and dump.Pumpings are best disposed of in municipal sewersystems. The second best option is to spreadpumpings onto suitable farmland. The least favorableoption is to landfill the waste.Pumpers must be licensed; the SWMB is currentlyworking to modify the program's rules so thatpumpers will be more closely monitored. To becomelicensed, dumpers will have to pre-arrange dumpingareas. Local officials will then approve disposal ofpumpings and inspect sites and operators to ensurecompliance.ResourcesHenningson, Durham and Richardson, State Solid WasteManagement Study, Helena, 1976.League of Women Voters, Hazardous Waste Exchange,Washington, D.C., 1984.Montana Dept. of Heahh and Environmental Sciences SolidWaste Management Bureau, Hazardous Wastes in Montana,Helena, 1977; Motor Vehicle Recycling and Disposal Program,1981.Montana Dept. of Health and Environmental SciencesWater Quality Bureau, Montana Water Quality 1982,Helena, 1983.Resource Conservation Committee, Choices for Conservation,July 1979.

EQCACTIVITIES

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 119MONTANA ENVIRONMENTALPOLICY ACTThe Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA),75-1-101, et seq., MCA, was passed by the 41st MontanaLegislature and became law in 1971. The purposeof the act is "...to declare a state policy which willencourage productive and enjoyable harmony betweenman and his environment, to promote efforts whichwill prevent or eliminate damage to the environmentand biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare ofman, to enrich the understanding of the ecologicalsystems and natural resources important to the state,and to establish an environmental quality council."At 75-1-103, the act declares that it is "...the continuingpolicy of the state of Montana, in cooperationwith the federal government and local governmentsand other concerned public and private organizations,to use all practicable means and measures, includingfinancial and technical assistance, in a manner calculatedto foster and promote the general welfare, tocreate and maintain conditions under which man andnature can coexist in productive harmony, and fulfillthe social, economic, and other requirements of presentand future generations of Montanans."To fulfill these goals, MEPA requires that the stateassess the impact that each proposed major stategovernment action would have on the quality of thehuman environment by preparing a detailed statementthat discusses:— the adverse environmental effects that cannot beavoided should the proposal be implemented;— alternatives to the proposed action;— the relationship between local short-term uses ofman's environment and the maintenance andenhancement of long-term productivity; and— the irreversible and irretrievable commitments ofresources that would be involved in the proposedaction should it be implemented.While this policy mandate seems straightforward,uncertainty exists over the state's specific obligationsunder the act. This uncertainty surrounds oneparamount question: "Does MEPA require orauthorize the state to incorporate the broadenvironmental considerations discussed in MEPAwhen it decides to grant, deny, or condition theissuance of a permit or license?"This question remains unanswered, although theMontana Supreme Court did partially respond to it in1976 in Montana Wilderness Association v. Board of

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 120Health and Environmental Sciences. That case concernedthe removal of sanitary restrictions on the proposedBeaver Creek South Subdivision in GallatinCounty. The jurisdiction of the department aroseunder the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act, which requiresDHES to review proposed subdivision provisionsfor water supply, sewage disposal and solidwaste disposal. The department prepared an environmentalimpact statement triggered by the proposed actionof removing these sanitary restrictions. Thirtydays after the issuance of the final environmental impactstatement, the department issued a certificateremoving the sanitary restrictions on the plat. Justprior to this, the Montana Wilderness Associationsought to enjoin the department in district court,alleging that the department's environmental impactstatement was inadequate and, as such, the departmenthad failed to comply with MEPA. The districtcourt compared the BIS with the requirements set outin MEPA, and found that the procedure adopted bythe department had been wholly inadequate to meetthe standards established in the statute.The Montana Supreme Court heard the case on appealand on July 22, 1976, it affirmed the districtcourt's decision. The court held that the departmentwas indeed required by MEPA to conduct a comprehensivereview of the environmental consequences ofits decision, and that the EIS prepared thereunder wasprocedurally inadequate due to an insufficient discussionand consideration of the fullrange of environmentalfactors required by MEPA. On December30, 1976, however, the court issued a second opinionfollowing a rehearing, and completely reversed itsearlier decision. In the December opinion, the courtheld that the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act dictatesthat the department act only in accordance with thosecriteria specifically expressed in that act: sewage, solidwaste and water supply. The court reasoned thatMEPA could not expand the department's review ofsubdivisions beyond those specific criteria, since thatwould create a conflict with the legislative policy oflocal control as expressed in the Subdivision and PlattingAct.Although this ruling has invited strong criticism, itis currently the law on the matter and given this, itmust be accepted that an agency's responsibilitiesunder MEPA can be circumscribed by other statutes.At this time, however, it remains unclear whether theholding will be limited to those instances where a stateversus local control question exists.Regardless of the resolution of this issue, an examinationof agency implementation of MEPAthrough compliance with the EIS requirement is appropriate.From the outset, there has been substantialvariation among agencies in their approach to implementingMEPA. The first Environmental QuahtyCouncil, in October of 1971, issued a set of interimguidelines to help agencies prepare environmental impactstatements. The subsequent internal proceduresadopted by the various agencies ranged from extremesimplicity to comprehensive, carefully prepared outlines.Some agencies did not prepare any internal procedures.Additionally, there was a lackluster effort byagencies to comply with 69-6505, RCM, 1947, whichrequired all agencies of the state to review theirstatutory authority, administrative regulations, andpolicies and procedures to identify inconsistencies anddiscrepancies that would prevent full compliance withthe purposes and provisions of MEPA. Any such discrepancywas to have been reported to the governorand the EQC by July 1, 1972, along with proposedmeasures for remedying the conflict. The apparentfailure of one agency to diligently comply with thisdirective may have been the cause of costly litigationseveral years later. In 1979, the Montana SupremeCourt issued a decision in Kadillak v. AnacondaCompany, a case which involved a conflict betweenMEPA and the Hard-Rock Mining Act; the statutorytime frame for agency action on permit applicationswas incompatible with the EIS requirement underMEPA. Following clear federal precedent, the courtheld that because this constituted an irreconcilableconflict, an EIS would not be required. Interestingly,the 1977 Legislature had already amended the Hard-Rock Mining Act to create flexibility and allow forEIS preparation in subsequent applications.Nonetheless, in the first year of its existence MEPAresulted in the production of 64 EIS's. Although thereis no real indication of whether or not these documentswere considered in the decision-making process,this does represent an attempt at good faith complianceby most agencies. If the system did notoperate entirely as the legislature had intended, it wasperhaps due to a genuine lack of understanding on thepart of the agencies, including the EQC, as to whatrole an EIS should play in the decision process. Theearly EQC guidelines lacked a discussion of how anEIS was expected to be utilized. It was not until therules had been revised for the third time that the EQCincluded a discussion of the EIS's role in agency planningand decision making. Significantly, this inclusionoccurred only after it had been determined that theEQC actually lacked any authority to impose itsguidelines on executive branch agencies.The EQC's authority to act in this regard hadpreviously been questioned and even the EQC seemedto exhibit a lack of confidence in itsability toprescribe rules. It was not until 1975, however, thatthis issue was resolved. On April 17,the First JudicialDistrict Court, in the Montana Wilderness AssociationV. The Board of Land Commissioners, held that theEQC's guidelines were unenforceable, since thepowers of the EQC staff were limited to the makingof studies and recommendations. The court in itsdictaalso strongly criticized both the executive and legislativebranches of the state government for failing todevelop a workable system for effective enforcementof MEPA.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 121This chastisement resulted in an almost immediateresponse by the governor. On April 30, 1975, ThomasJudge issued an executive order to create a commissionon environmental quality, the CEQ, which wasdirected to work with the EQC and other agencies ofthe executive branch and the public to promulgateuniform MEPA rules. In November, CEQ held a publichearing on proposed rules and on January 15,1976, it issued a final revision of the model ruleswhich incorporated, to a certain extent, the commentsand suggestions received at the hearing. These rulesdid not, however, outline the proper use of an EIS,as the May 1975 EQC guidelines did. The executivebranch agencies, when adopting these rules, also didnot choose to include any such provision.An EQC staff report by Steven Perlmutter, entitledThe Montana Environmental Policy Act - The FirstFive Years, provides a general understanding of theearly years of MEPA implementation. Perlmuttertook the position that MEPA does have substantiveimportance and imposes definite requirements onagency actions. While in his view the EIS was oftenrelegated to an improper subordinate role or perhapseven used as a mere defense against litigation,he didadmit that the EIS process was partially serving itspurpose. His principal reason for this conclusion wasthat public awareness and participation in the EISprocess tended to make agencies more aware of environmentalconcerns. This increased citizen participationdiscouraged decisions being made behind closeddoors without adequate supporting data. Additionally,he concluded that private developers were beginningto plan for environmental factors prior to seekingagency approval for their projects.Looking beyond the first five years of MEPA, nodrastic changes have occurred in agency treatment andperception of MEPA and the EIS process. Prior tothe recent action by the district court in the CabinetResource Group case, the significance of which hasnot yet been fully assessed, only two notable eventshave occurred since Perlmutter's report was written.The first is the second decision in Beaver CreekSouth. Even though this did not decide the proceduralversus substantive issue, it continues to be cited bymany as having done so. For that reason, in a practicalsense, it has contributed to MEPA being regardedas a strictly procedural statute.The other noteworthy event was the re-establishmentof the Commission on Environmental Quality byGovernor Judge on March 8, 1978, to update themodel MEPA rules. Following a public hearing, theCEQ issued a revised set of model rules which wereadopted by most of the executive agencies. While therevision was not a sharp departure from the earlierversion, it did attempt to clarify several ambiguities.Interestingly, the rules in draft form excluded the promulgationof agency rules from the EIS requirements.Because a bill attempting to do the same had beendefeated by the 1979 Legislature, the CEQ was harshlycriticized and chose to omit this from its finalreport.Since the adoption of the new rules, there appearsto be a growing tendency for agencies to view the EISprocess as an important aid in decision making. If thisis the case, then it follows that environmental impactstatements may be serving a substantive role in manyinstances. If MEPA was intended to be substantive,then perhaps most agencies are now in at least partialcompliance with its mandates. On the other hand, iffound to be merely procedural, then allMEPA isagencies may already be in full compliance.HARD-ROCKMINING STUDYDuring the 1981-82 legislative interim, the EQCcompleted a study of the hard-rock mining industry inMontana. The study, requested by the 1981Legislature in HJR 66, focused on the social andeconomic impacts of large-scale mining. The studylooked at the question: Are the tax revenues generatedby local governments from the development adequateto offset the costs incurred for supplying governmentservices and faciUties? The subcommittee that conductedthe study found that total local tax revenuesgenerally exceed government expenditures and that theexisting level of taxation was adequate to offset initialimpacts. Of equal importance was the discovery thattax revenues, while ample in size, were not alwaysdistributed equitably among affected governmentunits. This is because a mineral development maylocate in one jurisdiction, establishing a significant taxbase there, but cause a substantial population influxin an adjacent jurisdiction that receives little or nodirect revenue from the development.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 122To alleviate this problem the subcommitteedeveloped a plan that would enable all affectedgovernment units to levy taxes against a portion ofthe mineral developer's tax base. This plan waspresented to the 1983 Legislature, along with fourother measures proposed by the subcommittee. Thetax base sharing proposal and two of the other proposalspassed and became law. One of the other twobills amended the Hard-Rock Mining Impact Act, a1981 measure that deals with front-end impacts oflarge-scale mining. The amendments did not bringabout any substantive changes but merely refined themechanics of the act. The remaining successful billwas designed to mitigate the tail-end impacts thatresult from the shutdown of mining operations. Itincreased slightly the rate of taxation for the industryunder the Metalliferous Mines License Tax andallocated a portion of the revenues to a newly createdimpact trust account. The account is intended forrelief to governments that experience severe economichardships due to mining slowdowns or shutdowns.The only bill culminating from the EQC's miningstudy that did not receive legislative approval was aproposed amendment to the purpose statement containedin the Resource Indemnity Trust Tax Act.Because the subcommittee found that revenues collectedunder that act from the extractive industrieswere being used for a variety of general stateprograms, it sought to add language that made it expresslyclear that funds collected thereunder may beused to mitigate adverse impacts directly related to theextraction of non-renewable resources. Even thoughthe bill failed, funds may still be used for suchpurposes.If you are interested in the EQC Hard-RockReport, there are some copies still available. Contactthe EQC office.PURPAIn1978, the U.S. Congress responded to theexisting national energy crisis by passing the PublicUtilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA). One of fivestatutes included in the National Energy Act, PURPAwas designed to encourage small-scale power facilities(less than 80 megawatt) to generate electricity fromsolid waste, geothermal resources, or renewableresources (solar, wind and water). Under PURPA,each electric utility isrequired to purchase availableelectricity from qualifying small producers. The actalso requires the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) to prescribe and periodically revise rulesto encourage cogeneration and small-scale power production.The rules FERC issued have been exceptionallyfavorable to developers of small-scale hydropower.Utilities are required to pay developers ratesequivalent to "full avoided costs," or the cost theutility would have had to pay to obtain additionalpower by generation or purchase. A second advantageallowed by FERC rules gives blanket authority tosmall-scale power producers to connect with utilitieswithout meeting substantive and proceduralrequirements of the Federal Power Act, i.e. requiringthat interconnection serve the public interest,encourage energy conservation and improve thereceiving utility's efficiency and reliability.Stimulated by these incentives, developers havecreated a "gold rush" atmosphere in their applicationsfor preliminary permits. Because a preliminarypermit gives a developer priority to a site for 18-36months, some developers have made applications withlittle more information than data from a topographicmap and estimates of stream discharges. Althoughmany of these applications are later abandoned by thedeveloper, the large number of applications hascaused confusion and added a burden for permittingagencies.Additional confusion and concern has resulted fromFERC rules that would exempt from licensing proceduressites for hydropower of five megawattscapacity or less. In these instances, FERC wouldrequire only minimal data on available water, leavingthe remaining permit evaluations to state agencies.State agencies are not authorized to grant or deny permitsor licenses,but only to establish permit conditions.In many of the early discussions and supportingstatements for PURPA, small-scale hydroelectricpower was described as environmentally benign.Evidence is now mounting to show this is not alwaystrue. Some sites can be developed with little or noimpact on other resources, but development at othersites may be very detrimental to fisheries, wildlife andwater quality. The investigations necessary to makethese determinations are time-consuming and difficult.There are no guidelines for either the developer or thepermitting agencies.The EQC first became involved with these issues in1978 when it oversaw a National Conference of StateLegislatures study of hydropower potential in Montana.As a result of this study, the 1981 Legislatureprovided tax incentives for small-scale powerproducers in Montana.In 1982 the EQC staff held an interagency meetingto discuss the status of small-scale hydroelectric power

development, along with environmental concerns andpossible solutions to existing problems. The agenciesrepresented at the meeting were the U.S. GeologicalSurvey, Forest Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service,and the Montana Departments of Health andEnvironmental Sciences, Natural Resources and Conservationand Fish, Wildlife and Parks, and MontanaState University.A problem common to all agencies was the lack ofa coordinating agency that would receive permitapplications, coordinate interagency review, and maintainnecessary records. Not only would such anagency save duplication of effort by agencies, but itwould simplify the permitting process for developers.A second common problem was the difficulty ofproviding timely and adequate evaluations withexisting manpower and budgets. Many proposed sitesare in remote areas where baseline data on waterquantity and environmental conditions are lacking.Some important environmental concerns expressedby agency personnel were:- dewatering of important fish habitat and spawningsites where stream water is diverted through apenstock to a turbine. Some proposed sites woulddewater several miles of stream.- dams may cause detrimental changes in habitatand flow regimes, or block fish migrations.- erosion and sedimentation of the affected streamdue to road and power plant construction and streambankdisturbance, or erosion due to road andtransmission line construction, especially in upperelevations where soil and vegetation cover are sparse.- opening of roadless areas with impacts on wildlife.- impacts on water quality due to the filling andcleanout of sediment basins, nitrogen gas supersaturationand temperature changes.The cumulative impacts of multiple developmentswithin a single drainage is a particular concern.Although a single site may not cause significantdamage, multiple developments could dramaticallyimpact other resources.Finally, concern was expressed that environmentalcosts are not being considered in determining benefitsof a project. A few developers stand to make financialgains, but are the benefits to the public sufficientto justify the project?Some changes in the existing small-scale hydroelectricpermit process have been suggested:1. A central agency should be given responsibilityfor receiving, processing and recording permit applications.2. A moratorium on permit applications should beimposed until guidelines, environmental assessmentsand power demands are evaluated and established.3. Site development plans and design should be providedto allregulatory agencies in advance of any construction.Modifications of design may allow correctionsbefore impacts occur.EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 123ENVIRONMENTandECONOMYFORUMThe EQC has undertaken several activities since1979 to investigate the impacts that Montana'senvironmental regulations have on the state'seconomy.In 1979 and 1980, the EQC studied ways toencourage economic development that is compatiblewith environmental quality. That effort produced tworeports: "Promoting Industrial Growth and Diversification"and "A Study of Industry Experiences andAttitudes in Montana."After the closure of the Anaconda Company'soperations in Anaconda and Great Falls, the 1981Legislature established a Select Committee onEconomic Problems to study, among other things, thereasons for the closures and the causes of the declineof traditional major industries in Montana. The committeedrew up no major conclusions or recommendationsfor change. At the same time, an EQC subcommitteewas cooperating with an interim legislativecommittee to determine the impact of environmentalregulations on the economic, social and physical environment.The subcommittee decided to adopt a study plan,the core of which was a public forum that wouldfocus on the various environmental regulations in thestate and the costs and benefits to the total environment.To assure that the forum included representationfrom as many aspects of Montana's economy andenvironment as possible, the EQC established a steeringcommittee with participation from industry,government and conservation interests. The purposeof the steering committee was to assist the EQC instructuring the forum, determining the issues to beconsidered, selecting participants, and obtaining broadparticipation in the forum.The decision was made at one of the early steeringcommittee meetings to request information from thevarious sectors represented on the environmentalregulations that were considered most burdensomeand/or ineffective. However, with a few exceptionsthe various organizations were unwilling to release theinformation because of the fear that their opponents

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 124would then know what issues they would focus onduring the upcoming legislative session. At this point,the subcommittee decided to proceed with the forumalthough the specific issues could not be effectivelytargeted. Throughout the planning process, the steeringcommittee was contacted and given the opportunityto make suggestions which were often implemented.Although the final forum became moretheoretical and generalized than originally intended,specific areas were examined during the case studysection.The EQC intended that the forum provide a basisfor developing communication and cooperation betweenall interests concerned about the economic andenvironmental well being of the state. The councilfeels that this goal was largely accomplished, and thatthe forum established a firm foundation on which tobuild future cooperative efforts to achieve economicdevelopment conforming to reasonable environmentalstandards.The EQC published proceedings of the forum fordistribution to the legislature in1983. The proceedings,available from the EQC office, contain asummary of many of the formal presentations andcomments from members of the audience. They alsocontain recommendations adopted by the EQC as aresult of the forum.crews to prevent these problems has caused concernedlandowners to request additional regulations andimproved methods for plugging shotholes.In an effort to solve these problems, the NortheastMontana Land and Mineral Owners Associationrequested assistance from the industry, the MontanaBureau of Mines and Geology, and the EnvironmentalQuality Council. Early discussions led to the organizationof a special task force under the auspices of theMontana Petroleum Association. The task force metat various locations in the state to discuss proposedchanges in regulations and guidelines for pluggingseismic shotholes.The task force and interested participants agreed onprocedures and rules needed to protect water and landresources. An application for the proposed rulechanges was approved by the Board of Oil and GasConservation during its meeting on June 24, 1982.The rule changes specify the procedures for filling andplugging seismic shotholes, stabilizing artesian waterdeposits penetrated by seismic holes, and otherreclamation efforts.The Board of Oil and Gas Conservation recommendedlegislative changes that would authorize theboard to adopt rules requiring adequate identificationof geophysical exploration crews operating in thisstate and designating areas where geophysical explorationand activities may be prohibited.Senate Bill 350, introduced by Senator Larry Tveitin the 1983 session, amended existing statutes torequire the board to adopt the recommended rulechanges and to modify the required methods for pluggingseismic shotholes. This legislation was adoptedby the legislature and signed by the governor.SHOTHOLESSeismic exploration for oil and gas has occurredover large areas of Montana during the past decade.The acceleration of this activity since 1973 has createdconcerns and problems for many landowners whoseproperty has been leased for exploration. Althoughmany different concerns have been expressed, aprimary issue has been the impact of seismic explorationon groundwater resources and agricultural lands.Some seismic crews have failed to meet their obligationsin restoring seismic "shotholes," while someothers have not used proper plugging techniques.Seismic explorations frequently use explosivecharges placed at the bottom of holes that are drilledno deeper than 200 feet. The drilling of the hole mayleave surface deposits of drill cuttings; the explosionmay create small craters on the surface and the drillingand explosion may allow contamination ofgroundwater aquifers. The failure of some seismicREGALPROGRAMIn 1975, Montana began the nation's first statefundedfinancial incentive program to develop emergingrenewable energy technologies. The program wasdesigned to decrease Montana's reliance on nonrenewablefossil fuels, and increase solar, wind,

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 125biomass, geothermal and small-scale hydro renewableenergy. Funded by a percentage of the state's coalseverance tax revenue, the program provided for theresearch, development and demonstration of theseenergy sources.The legislature assigned the Department of NaturalResources and Conservation to administer the program.DNRC began issuing grants to individuals andbusinesses in 1976. In its first few years, the programconcentrated heavily on solar technologies. But as thenation's and state's energy pictures developed, so didthe competition for the renewable energy grants.Technologies for a variety of renewable energysources matured at the same time the program wascoming under closer scrutiny by the legislature and thepublic. This interest was especially high because of thenational controversy over Montana's coal severancetax.Although the program's original legislation hadbeen amended only once since its 1975 adoption, the1981 Legislature revamped it in a three-prongedeffort.These legislative changes reflected a dissatisfactionamong the majority of legislators with the administrationof the program. Many legislators believed thatthere had been no demonstrable reduction of thestate's reliance on fossil fuels. Charges surfaced aboutfavoritism in issuing grants, and about too muchemphasis on solar technologies. In addition, manylegislators felt a lack of follow-up, reporting, andfinancial accountability for the grants detracted fromthe program's effectiveness.Representative Joe Quilici (D-Butte) sponsored HB398, which sought to correct these deficiencies andtighten administration of the program. The billlimited the funding of demonstration projects to thosewith good potential for saving non-renewable energyand prohibited those demonstration projects that weresimilar to unproductive projects or were near a similarproject. It also required projects that received grantsto fit within the goals of the statute. In addition, thelegislation required the DNRC to monitor grants andloans it made and report to the legislature on theeffectiveness of funded projects or programs.Representative Quilici's bill also required DNRC tosubmit periodic reports to the Environmental QualityCouncil for review and evaluation, and directed theEQC to make recommendations to assure the greatestpossible benefit from the program.EQC RoleEQC Chairman Rep. Dennis Iverson (R-Whitlash)delegated the oversight task to a subcommittee headedby Senator Harold Dover (R-Lewistown) and composedof Dover and two public EQC members, Dr.Leslie Pengelly and Glen Rugg. The subcommitteewas required to report to the full EQC which, in turn,agreed to develop the final report andrecommendations.As the EQC staff began to formulate a plan for itsoversight activities, it became clear that otherlegislative entities had an interest in the program aswell, including the Legislative Audit Committee andthe Coal Tax Oversight Subcommittee.During the spring of 1981, the Legislative Auditorhad released a report on selected energy grantprograms, including the renewable alternative energyprogram. The report identified several areas ofconcern, including program direction, monitoring ofgrants, contract provisions, fund balance,documentation and contracted services. TheLegislative Auditor issued seven recommendations forthe DNRC, including establishing clear goals andmonitoring progress of grantees.Wishing to avoid duplicating the LegislativeAuditor's work, the EQC Alternative EnergySubcommittee held its first meeting in September 1981with representatives of the Auditor's office. At thattime, the subcommittee agreed to build on theAuditor's recommendations and monitor the programto see that it met its goals; that criteria for evaluatingprojects receiving funding were adequate; that its rulesfor administering the program were workable, fair,and within legislative intent; and, that the legislativedirection for the program was clear and sufficient foradministration of an effective program. Thesubcommittee decided to focus on development of thecommercialization and loan elements of the program,suggesting that the EQC could be a sounding boardfor policies for improvement of the program, ratherthan an overseer to point out faults after the fact.EQC staff communicated frequently with DNRCstaff over the following 18 months to carry out thesubcommittee's direction. The subcommittee againmet with DNRC representatives in January 1982 toreview the methodology the department used to selectproposals submitted to them. The subcommitteereviewed proposed rules implementingcommercialization and loan procedures as well asgenerally revamping the program.At the same time, the EQC subcommittee met withthe Coal Tax Oversight Subcommittee, which overseesthe spending of coal tax revenues. Again in order toavoid duplication, the two subcommittees agreed todivide responsibilities. They agreed to have the EQCfocus on adequacy of administration of the program,while CTO would investigate whether or not it wasappropriate for the program to be funded by coal taxmoney and at what level.EQC subcommittee members and staff also metperiodically with the DNRC Renewable EnergyAdvisory Council (REAC) to coordinate recommendationsfor effective administration of the program.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 126DNRC ChangesAcknowledging flaws in the way grants had beendistributed in the past and believing that a strongcommitment to development of alternatives to nonrenewableenergy sources represents a compellingdefense of the coal severance tax, DNRC recentlycompleted a major restructuring of the program.DNRC made the following changes:1) DNRC will closely monitor the projects fundedto insure completion and that money is appropriatelyspent;2) Emphasis will be placed on stronger conservationmeasures to complement the efficiency of alternativeenergy projects;3) As some forms of alternative energy reach thecommercialization stage, money will be awarded asloans as well as grants. This will minimize interferencewith the market and the state will receive a directmonetary return on its investment;4) Criteria for awarding grants and loans will bestrengthened, including an emphasis on competence ofthe applicant, engineering and technical soundness,need for the technology and the audience targeted bythe project. The projects will be given points forvarious objective criteria, and those with the highestscores will be funded. In this way, the DNRC haseliminated much of the "politics" previously involvedin the process; and5) DNRC will advertise the program more widely.Another important aspect of the program'sreorganization is a study entitled the SustainableEnergy Assessment (SEA), which will help determinethe end-use of energy generated and consumed inMontana. This assessment, anticipated in 1985, willhelp the department to direct the program's resourcesto where they will be most effective. The SEAattempts to identify the most productive opportunitiesfor conservation and renewable energy, the resourcesavailable for energy production and the mostappropriate systems for meeting energy demands withavailable resources.In carrying out legislative direction to institute aloan program for commercialization of renewableenergy sources, DNRC worked closely with banks,credit unions and savings and loan institutions. Thisprocess should familiarize lending institutions withpromising renewable technologies and stimulate thefunneling of private funds to worthy projects. DNRCand the REAC first review loan applications fortechnical soundness, then authorize qualified projectsto be submitted to a financial institution of the applicant'schoice.There was some confusion in the first loan cycle;some applicants assumed that these loans would notbe subject to the normal requirements of collateralization.However, the financial institution evaluates theseapplications as they would other requests for commercialloans. As part of the review process, the lendinginstitution carries out credit checks and othercustomary loan origination procedures. This cameunder some initial criticism from applicants who questionedthe advantages of the state program underthese conditions. However, DNRC and the subcommitteebelieve that this process helps insure against theloss of state funds while still stimulating sound projectsat interest rates lower than for conventionalloans.To incorporate this loans program andimprove the grants program, DNRC adopted revisedrules in the spring of 1982. Among the key elementsof the revised rules were:... the residency requirement for applicants iseliminated, but only projects conducted in-state willbe funded;... the preference given to small-scale projects iseliminated;... the maximum single grant or loan is 10 percentof the annual appropriation for the program;...projects to commercialize alternative energy willbe considered for loans only;... loans will be made through financial institutionswith the department providing up to 90 percent andthe financial institution providing the remainder;... the interest rate on the state share of any loanmust be a fixed rate equal to the Federal Reserve DiscountRate on the day the loan closes;... the financial institution that finances the nonstateportion of a loan for a project sets its owninterest rate, either fixed or variable; and,... demonstration project eligibility is restricted,with greater emphasis on public and private nonprofitprojects.1983 LegislatureTo further improve the program, DNRC recommendedto the 1983 Legislature the adoption of SB356, sponsored by Senator John Mohar (D-Troy), toallow for research, development, and demonstrationgrants for energy conservation and to remove the prohibitionon private ownership and control of researchinformation. The program administrators found thatin many instances, conservation measures were inextricablytied to development of alternative energytechnologies. Therefore it was often difficult todistinguish between the two in a project. The departmentbelieved that the essential conservation elementsof the projects should also be encouraged through thefinancial incentives of the grant program. The 1983Legislature concurred.

REACAnother essential element in effective implementationof the REGAL program is the Renewable EnergyAdvisory Council (REAC). Provided for in theadministrative rules, REAC is composed of legislatorsand other citizens with an interest and expertise inrenewable energy.The Renewable Energy Advisory Council meetsseveral times during the biennium to review DNRCstaff recommendations for grant and loan projectsand to advise the department on policy issues.Although the DNRC director holds final authority forapproval of projects, he generally accepts anymodifications made by REAC to staff recommendations.EQC RecommendationsFollowing its review of the REGAL program, theEQC adopted three recommendations:1) The department should improve public involvementin both the review of projects for funding andthe development of policy for the program. Althoughexclusion of extraneous political influence on fundingprojects is desirable, some community input to thereview process could be beneficial. Evaluating thepublic benefit of projects could be enhanced throughbetter public notice of the review process.2) The department should consult more frequentlywith REAC and EQC on policy issues.November 3, 1982 meeting, REAC largely respondedonly to department staff recommendations. REACmembers possess expertise and a perspective that canfurther enhance administration of the program. ForUntil theexample, the loan program has become more responsiveto applicant's needs by the establishment of threeloan cycles per year, as recommended by REAC.3) The department should submit to EQC itspreliminary environmental reviews under the MontanaEnvironmental Policy Act (MEPA). While all theREGAL projects are potentially beneficial to certainaspects of environmental quality, some may havesignificant negative impacts as well. The EQC isinterested in evaluating the overall environmentaleffect of these projects.EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 127GROUND-WATERGroundwater is clearly one of Montana's most vitalnatural resources. Nearly one-half of the state'sdomestic water needs are supplied by groundwater; inmany locations it serves as the only availablefreshwater for both domestic and agricultural purposes.But despite this obvious importance, groundwaterand the environmental conditions that influenceits availability and quality are poorly understood. Ata time when water resource issues are of particularconcern to Montanans, it is essential that informationon groundwater is available to decision makers.Consistent with its duties under MEPA, the EQCinitiated discussion of groundwater management issuesand needs. Working with specialists from several stateand federal agencies, the EQC organized the MontanaGroundwater Conference, which was held in GreatFalls in April 1982.The conference involved individuals from industry,agriculture, regulatory and planning agencies, localand county governments, legislators and scientists.Conference discussion sessions resulted in a series ofrecommendations for state action.As a result of the conference recommendations, theEQC formally requested that Governor TedSchwinden appoint a Groundwater Advisory Councilto investigate groundwater resources and managementneeds for the future. The governor appointed a16-member council on January 14, 1983.To assist the Advisory Council's study, an ad hoctechnical committee organized by the DNRCdeveloped a draft report on the Status of Groundwaterin Montana. The report, which outhnes informationon the state's groundwater resources, providesa basic discussion of issues that must be considered indeveloping a groundwater management strategy. Afinal report, complete with council recommendations,will be issued by the Advisory Council upon completionof its study in January 1985.EQC is continuing its investigation on groundwaterissues in Montana. For a copy of the proceedings ofthe Montana Groundwater Conference, contact EQC.

NATURALRESOURCEISSUESIN THE48THMONTANALEGISLATURE

TABLE OF CONTENTSEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 131AIR QUALITY 133ENERGY 134Major Facility Siting 134Renewable Energy and Conservation 134Other 136ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 137General 137Montana Environmental Policy Act 138FISH AND WILDLIFE 139Hunting, Fishing, Trapping, Outfitting 139Other 141LAND USE 143Annexation 143Eminent Domain 143Farmland Preservation 143Forest Lands 144Parks and Recreation 145Planning 146Public Lands 147Special Districts— Conservation Districts 148Special Districts— Irrigation Districts 148Subdivisions 149Zoning 151Other 151MINERAL AND PETROLEUMDEVELOPMENT 152Exploration, Operations, and Reclamation 152Local Impact Mitigation 154Coal Development 154Hard-Rock Mining 155Taxation and Royalties 156Coal Severance 156Federal Payments 158Metalliferous Mines License Tax 158Net and Gross Proceeds Taxes 159Oil and Gas Severance Taxes 160Resource Indemnity Trust Tax 161Other Taxation and Royalties 162Other 163NOISE 163PEST AND WEED CONTROL 163Toxicants 163Other 164PUBLIC AND OCCUPATIONALHEALTH 165WASTE CONTROL 165Hazardous 165Junk Vehicles 166Solid Waste 166Other 166WATER 167Apportionment/Adjudication 167Development 169Marketing 170Quality 171Stream Access 171Other 172SUMMARY OF NATURALRESOURCE LEGISLATION 173

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 132ACRONYMSBPADFWPDHESDNRCDOADOCDOHDSLEQCFERCHEHJRMEPAMFSAMMLTPSCPURPASBSJRSRSRITBonneville Power AdministrationDepartment of Fish, Wildlife and ParksDepartment of Health and Environmental SciencesDepartment of Natural Resources and ConservationDepartment of AdministrationDepartment of CommerceDepartment of HighwaysDepartment of State LandsEnvironmental Quality CouncilFederal Energy Regulatory CommissionHouse BillHouse Joint ResolutionMontana Environmental Policy ActMajor Facility Siting ActMetalliferous Mines License TaxPublic Service CommissionPublic Utilities Regulatory Policy ActSenate BillSenate Joint ResolutionDepartment of Social and Rehabilitation ServicesResource Indemnity Trust

EQC Eighth Annual Report Page 133Air QualityPassed:SB 291 Eck Ensures that the time limit forissuance of a decision on an air qualitypermit application does not occur prior toissuance of an environmental impactstatement when one is prepared by anagency other than the Air Quality Bureau.Amending 75-2-211Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0, House 94-0SB 349 Dover Authorizes the Board of Healthand Environmental Sciences to grantexemptions and exemption renewals to airquality rules for periods of more than oneyear. Prior to passage of this act, emissionstandards exemptions had to be renewedon a yearly basis until a site achievedcompliance.Amending 75-2-212Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0, House 91-6HB 352 Ream Authorizes the DHES to enforceconditions and limitations specified in airKilled:quality permits through the imposition ofcivil and criminal penalties. Previously,only violations of agency rules or statutecould be penalized.Amending 75-2-401, 75-2-403, 75-2-412, and75-2-413Third Reading Votes: House 92-4, Senate 46-0HB 445 Ellerd Requiring a non-smoking areato be designated in all enclosed publicplaces (except taverns) and prohibiting thedesignation of an entire area of a publicplace as a smoking area.Amending 50-40-104Killed on Senate Second Reading

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 134EnergyMajor Facility SitingPassed:HB 263 Ream Amends the Montana MFSA todelete the provision exempting federalfacilities from its coverage.Amending 75-20-201 and 75-20-202Third Reading Votes: House 92-5, Senate 47-0Resources and Conservation under theMFSA be deposited into the DNRC earmarkedrevenue fund. This fund isutilized by the department for administeringthe MFSA.Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeHB 803 Harp Requiring the DNRC to adoptspecific standards for issuance of Certificatesof Environmental Compatibilityand Public Need.Amending 75-5-105, 75-5-301, and 75-5-503Killed:HJR 39 D. Brown Directing the EQC toconduct a study of the MFSA and monitorthe DNRC's revision of rulesimplementing the act.Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeSB 275 Keating Generally revising the MFSA.This bill would, among other things, have:- removed the requirement for studyingalternative sites and technologies;- removed the requirement that need bedemonstrated for new major facilitiesthat would not be owned or operatedby utilities (such as synfuel plants);- shortened the period for agency review;- removed provisions allowing agenciesto make recommendations to the Boardof Health;- eliminated "cost" as a criteria fordetermining when a facility is major;- and decreased the filing fees requiredfrom facilities costing over $1 billion.Amending Title 70, Chapter 2, MCAKilled on Senate Third ReadingHB 676 Ream Requiring that monies collectedby DNRC from conditions placed on certificatesissued by the Board of NaturalRenewable Energyand ConservationPassed;HB 135 Yardley Provides a statutoryframework for treating wind and solar energyeasements as servitudes attached tothe land.Amending 70-17-101Third Reading Votes: House 93-3; Senate35-13HB 264 McBride Prolongs an existing programthat provides credits against individualincome taxes for persons who install alternativeenergy systems in their principaldwelling. The credit will continue to beavailable for installations made beforeDecember 31, 1986 instead of expiringDecember 31, 1982.Amending 15-32-201Third Reading Votes: House 93-0; Senate36-13

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 135SB 356 Mohar Makes funding available fromthe Alternative Energy Research andDemonstration Account for projects thatinvolve research, development, ordemonstration of increased energy efficiencyand conservation. Previouslygrants and loans from this account wereavailable only for renewable energyprojects and not to those enhancingconservation. This act also removes aprohibition on private ownership andcontrol of information obtained throughthis program and allows grants to extendbeyond one year provided all funding isaccrued only from the year the grant isauthorized.Amending 90-4-101 through 90-4-106Third Reading Votes: Senate 40-8; House74-24SB 430 Halligan Includes cogeneration as aqualifying small power production facilityfor purposes of selling electricity to publicutilities and electric cooperatives at ratesconsistent with the PURPA.Amending 69-3-601, 69-3-602, and 69-3-604Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House77-20SB 456 Fuller Allows an electric or gas utilityto purchase or invest in cost effectiveenergy conservation measures. The PSC isrequired to include conservation expendituresin utilities' rate bases and allowthem a 2% higher incremental rate ofreturn on investments in such measures.Amending 15-32-107Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House 96-0Killed:HB 70 Fabrega Providing a credit againstcorporate and individual income taxliability for capital expenditures of$50,000 or more for commercial systemsutilizing recognized nonfossil forms ofenergy generation. Eligible capitalexpenditures would have been reduced bythe amount of any state or federal grantsreceived. The credit would have been asmuch as 35% of eligible costs, and couldhave been carried forward.Died in House Select Committee on EconomicDevelopmentSB 283 Fuller Providing a tax credit for theinstallation of solar energy systems inresidential dwellings equal to 20% of thecost of installing such a system, but not toexceed $1000 or $2000 if married filing ajoint return. This credit would have replacedthe existing alternative energy taxcredit.Repealing 15-32-201 through 15-32-203Killed on House Second ReadingHB 695 Kadas Requiring the owners ofresidential dwelling units to providedetailed information on energyconsumption to prospective renters orbuyers upon request. Penalties wouldhave been provided for.Died in House Business and IndustryCommitteeHB 736 Ream Creating a tax credit for theinstallation of low emission wood orbiomass combustion devices and extendingthe existing alternative energy taxcredit for ten years.Amending 15-32-102, 15-32-201, and 15-32-203HB 755 Yardley Provides a credit againstbusiness income tax liability for capitalexpenditures for wind power generatingsystems. Eligible investments of over$5000 are entitled to a credit in anamount equal to 35% of the cost of thesystem. The credit cannot exceed ataxpayer's total liability in any year butcan be carried forward for as many asseven years.Third Reading Votes: House 99-1; Senate 40-8Died in House Taxation CommitteeHB 752 Kadas Requiring the DOC to adoptenergy efficiency standards for electricalappliances in an effort to reduce the rateof domestic energy consumption. Afterthe standards had taken effect, appliancesnot certified as meeting those standardscould not have been sold in Montana.Killed on House Third Reading

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 136HB 765 Kadas Requiring gas utilities withsales exceeding ten billion cubic feet peryear and electric utilities with sales exceeding500 million kilowatt-hours peryear to invest in cost-effective conservationmeasures for use by theirresidential customers.Amending 15-32-107Killed on House Second ReadingHB 790 D. Brown Expanding the RenewableEnergy Grant and Loan Program to includefunding for projects that enhancethe efficient use of nonrenewable energy.Amending 90-4-101, 90-4-102, 90-4-104, and90-4-105Died in House Business and IndustryCommitteeHB 839 Nilson Requiring energy audits beperformed on buildings owned or leasedby the state to identify conservation measuresthat could be implemented. Costeffectiveenergy conservation measureswould have been required to beimplemented by June 30, 1985 when thecosts for doing so would be less than orequal to the potential savings that wouldresult in a 12-month period.Died in House State AdministrationCommitteeHB 867 Fabrega Providing a credit againstincome tax liability for investments ofover $5000 in the manufacture of energyconservation products. The credit wouldhave equaled 35% of the investment andcould have been carried forward for up toseven years.Died in House Taxation CommitteeHB 888 Fabrega Providing a 35% creditagainst income tax liability forinvestments over $5,000 in themanufacture of renewable energyequipment.Died in House Taxation CommitteeHB 869 Fabrega Providing a 35% creditagainst income tax liability forinvestments of over $5,000 in theOtherPassed:manufacture of energy efficient, lowemission, wood-burning heaters.Died in House Taxation CommitteeHJR 2 Winslow Requests an examination bythe Coal Tax Oversight Subcommittee ofthe impacts on local government unitsthat might result from a proposed coalgasification plant in Wibaux, MT. Inaddition to studying impacts in Montana,the subcommittee is requested to cooperatewith a sister committee in NorthDakota which is examining impacts fromthis project in that state.Third Reading Votes: House 94-5; Senate 47-1HJR 14 Connelly Urges the United StatesCongress to enact legislation that providesfor annual budget review of the BPA bythe Pacific Northwest Electric Power andConservation Planning Council.Third Reading Votes: House 82-1; Senate 48-1SJR 17 Elliott Urges the BPA to adopt a ratestructure that will provide lower rates forits direct service industrial customers.Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-0; House58-35HJR 18 Quilici Requests that a committee oflegislators be assigned to review the finalpower plan developed by the PacificNorthwest Electric Power and ConservationPlanning Council and makerecommendations for appropriatelegislation to implement the plan.Third Reading Votes: House 98-0; Senate 41-6HB 747 Marks Includes electric transmissionlines (500-kv or larger) in the class ofproperty subject to the Privilege Tax. Thistax is imposed on the gainful use ofproperty that is otherwise tax exempt.Amending 15-23-101 and 15-24-1203Third Reading Votes: House 97-1; Senate 49-1

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 137Killed:SJR 19 Thomas Requesting an interimcommittee be appointed to study factorsaffecting power rates by the variousclasses of utility users.the conversion of the gas-fired heatingplant at the Pine Hills School to a coalfiredplant.Killed on House Second ReadingKilled on House Second Reading!17 Waldron Appropriating $1,668,724from the general fund to increase Low-Income Energy Assistance Block Grantsadministered by the SRS.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 707 Ramirez Authorizing the issuance andsale of general obligation bonds to financeHB 708 Quilici Establishing a statutoryrequirement for administration of theLow-Income Energy Assistance Programby the SRS as provided for in federal law.Administration at the local level wouldhave been the responsibility of communitynonprofit entities representing one ormore of the governor's planning councils.Amending 90-4-202Died in Senate Public Health, Welfare, andSafety CommitteEnvironmental QualityGeneralPassed:SB 101 Graham Generally revises and clarifieslaws relating to health, the environment,and natural resources. This bill, byrequest of the Code Commissioner, seeksto remedy internal contradictions,incorrect citations, outdated references.and constitutional conflicts identified bythe Montana Supreme Court.Amending 50-31-301. 50-38-235, 50-51-211,75-70-303, 82-11-101, 87-1-605, 87-2-805,87-4-122, 87-4-128, and 90-5-110;Repealing 49-4-201 and 87-4-126Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-0; House 99-0

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 138HB 228 Quilici Seeks to promote consistencyand continuity in the adoption andapplication of environmental rules.Specifically, this act declares a statepolicy not to change the requirements foran environmental permit after anapplication has been completed withoutfirst taking into account the financialcommitment of the applicant.purposes and takes effect upon passage ofa federal act establishing a federalconservation corps.Third Reading Votes: House 94-5; Senate48—0Amending 90-1-101Third Reading Votes: House 100-0; Senate50-0SB 400 B. Brown Entitles persons sufferinginjuries outside of the state as a result ofpollution originating within the state toseek redress in Montana courts providedthe jurisdiction where the injury occursoffers reciprocal rights to persons inMontana.Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-2; House 94-3Montana EnvironmentalPolicy ActHB 785 D. Brown Establishes a planningframework for the development of aMontana Natural Heritage Program as aninitial step in establishing a centralizednatural resource information systemwithin the DOA. An advisory committeecomposed of representatives from variousstate agencies involved in gatheringnatural resource information is created.This committee must establish criteria fordata collection, i.e. identify new andexisting sources and methods foracquisition, storage, and retrieval ofnatural resource data. The informationacquired shall be made available to thepublic and the DOA may charge for use ofthe data commensurate with costs.Third Reading Votes: House 73-22; Senate48-0Killed:SJR 20 Lee Requesting the EQC to conduct aninterim study of the MEPA. The studywould have focused primarily on whetheror not MEPA should expand agencyauthority to deny or conditionenvironmental permits in consideration ofadverse environmental impacts.Died in Senate Natural Resources CommitteeSB 368 Lee Amending MEPA to explicitlystate that it does not expand agencyauthority beyond existing authorizationsotherwise possessed by boards,commissions, and agencies of the state.Amending 75-1-105Killed on Senate Second ReadingHB 800 Vincent Creates a Youth ConservationCorps within the Department of Laborand Industry in order to provideemployment opportunities for youth whileenhancing the state's natural resources.The program will be limited to thesummer months and to young adultsbetween the ages of 15 and 21. Thisprogram must secure at least $25,000 inprivate donations for administrationr06 Gage Exempting the DHES fromMEPA in its review of subdivisions. Thedepartment would have been required toconsider the environmental assessmentssubmitted to local governments bydevelopers under the MontanaSubdivision and Platting Act.Amending 75-1-201, 76-3-603, 76-4-104, and76-4-129Died in House Natural Resources Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 139Fish and WildlifeHunting, Fishing,Trapping and OutfittingSee Also HB 804and elk tags, which will increase May 1,1983. Increases will be as follows:Passed:SB 126 E. Smith Permits a person who ownsreal property for the primary pursuit ofbona fide agricultural interests to provideoutfitting services on such property forcompensation without obtaining a license.Amending 87-4-101Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-0; House79-13SB 132 Jacobson Reestablishes the MontanaOutfitters' Council under existingstatutory authority and rules and providesfor sunset review in 1989. A procedurefor filling a vacancy on the council andfixing council members' compensation isalso included. The DFWP isauthorizedunder this act to establish outfitter licensefees.LicenseResident Fishing2-(iay Nonresident FishingResident Deer "A" TagResident Deer "B" TagResident Elk TagAntlerless Elk TagNonresident Big Game Comb.Nonresident Mountain LionResident Mountain LionTrapper's LicenseResident MooseResident Mountain GoatResident AntelopeResident Grizzly BearNonresident MooseNonresident Mountain GoatNonresident Grizzly Bear275Amending 87-2-301, 87-2-304, 87-2-501,87-2-505, 87-2-507, 87-2-508, 87-2-601, and87-2-701Third Reading Votes: House 91-9; Senate 47-2

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 140HB 342 Ellison Repeals the requirement thatmarten pelts be tagged by trappers.Repealing 87-3-502Third Reading Votes: House 88-2; Senate 47-1187 Mohar Authorizes the catching ofwhitefish from the Kootenai River by netsand traps for purposes of sale andrequires the DFWP to adopt rulesgoverning this practice.Amending 87-3-204 and 87-4-601Third Reading Votes: Senate 43-7; House 81-6HB 402 Eudaily Lowers from 65 to 62 the ageat which disabled persons qualify for halfpricedeer and elk tags. This act providesthat qualifying disabled persons will alsobe eligible for half-price deer and elklicenses. Responsibility for determiningwhen a disabled person will be allowed tohunt is transferred from medical doctorsto the DFWP. Those disabilities whichwill be allowed are to be stated by rule.Further, this act establishes that youthfrom 12 to 14 years of age must purchasea Conservation License only to fish andhunt upland and migratory game birds.Other hunting hcenses purchased by theseyouth will now cost one-half the regularprice instead of $2.Amending 87-2-801, 87-2-803, and 87-2-805Third Reading Votes: House 93-6; Senate 48-0J. Jensen Provides that the Fish andGame Commission may authorize theDirector of DFWP to open or close specialseasons upon 12 hours notice to thepublic. Amending 87-1-304SB 448 Lane Provides for stricter statescrutiny of game animal farms, game birdfarms, and fur farms. The act requiresthat the DFWP adopt rules for thispurpose.Repealing 87-4-401 through 87-4-405Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House75-19HB 541 Phillips Generally revises the lawsconcerning the issuance and terminationdate of fish and game licenses.Specifically, this bill allows the DFWP toissue fish and game licenses by mail andchanges the termination date of fishingand hunting licenses and conservationlicenses from April 30 to the last day ofFebruary.Amending 87-2-102, 87-2-104, 87-2-106,87-2-111, and 87-2-202Third Reading Votes: House 85-1; Senate 47-1HB 567 Bertelsen Prohibits persons fromdestroying or disturbing other persons'traps, or removing wildlife from trapsbelonging to others. Owners or lessees ofland where snares are located may,however, remove such traps at certaintimes when they pose a threat tolivestock.Third Reading Votes: House 86-0; Senate 47-3HB 836 J. Jensen Defines the mourning doveas a migratory game bird and provides fora dove hunting season that shall coincidewith the season for upland game birds.Amending 87-2-101Third Reading Votes: House 56-43; Senate25-23Third Reading Votes: House 78-11; Senate49-0HB 434 C. Smith Authorizes the DFWP toadopt rules to establish classifications forlicensing agents, circumstances underwhich licensing agents can post securityother than surety bonds, and a procedureproviding flexibility for licensing agents tomake remittance to the state.Amending 87-2-902 and 87-2-903Third Reading Votes: House 84-2; Senate 47-0Killed:HB 34 Ellison Requiring a hunter to obtainpermission before hunting any kind ofwildlife on private property. Present lawrequires permission only for big gamehunting.Amending 87-3-304Died in House Fish and Game Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 141SB 47 Jacobson Reducing the qualifying agefor resident senior citizen deer and elktags from 65 to 62 years of age.Amending 87-2-801Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeSB 344 Lynch Providing separate license feesfor migratory and upland game birdhunting. The DFWP would also have beenauthorized to procure and sell fish andwildlife artwork at a profit, the proceedsto have gone to habitat improvement.Amending 18-4-202, 18-4-203, 18-4-401. and18-4-402Adverse Senate Fish and Game CommitteeReport AdoptedHB 719 Devlin Eliminating the nonresident biggame combination license, and requiringnonresidents to purchase individuallicenses for specific big game. This billwould have established a nonresident elklicense costing $250 and limiting thenumber that could be issued in the statefor any single year to 17,000. Arearestrictions on nonresident deer licenseswould have been removed, but the mostthat could have been issued for the statein any year was 20,000.Amending 87-2-504 and 87-2-506; Repealing87-2-505Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 345 Spaeth Providing for the sale ordonation of animal carcasses regardless ofhow acquired by the DFWP. Up to$30,000 from the sale of carcasses wouldhave been used for establishing astatewide reward system to encouragereporting of violations of statutesadministered by the DFWP.Amending 87-1-511 through 87-1-513 and87-1-226Died in Senate Fish and Game CommitteeOtherHB 366 Iverson Requiring at least one memberof the Fish and Game Commission to be alicensed outfitter beginning October 1,1983.Amending 2-15-3402Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeSB 383 Etchart Allowing a person 62 years ofage or older with cataracts of the eyes orrheumatism of the hands or arms toreceive certification for a game licensethat allows another licensed hunter to killgame for the disabled person.Passed:Ellison Authorizes the DFWP to issuepermits for the taking and holding ofraptors (birds of prey) for captive breedingpurposes even though the possessor doesnot hold a falconry license. Thedepartment is also authorized to establishrules and fees for implementing this act.Amending 87-5-204 and 87-5-206Third Reading Votes: House 96-0; Senate 47-1SB 224 Tveit Designates the grizzly bear as theofficial animal of the state of Montana.Died in House Fish and Game Committee Third Reading Votes: Senate 42-4; House 88-5

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 142HB 377 Fabrega Provides a new source offunding for nongame wildlife programs bycreating a voluntary tax contributioncheckoff on the individual income taxform for taxpayers receiving a refund.These funds are to be used for researchand education programs and formanagement of nongame wildlife speciesdesignated by the DFWP, subject tolegislative approval, as being in need ofmanagement. No money can be used forpurchase of real property or in such away as to interfere with the managementof private property. The Fish and GameCommission must also approve any use ofthis money. This act also contains atermination clause and requires thedepartment to submit a report to the 50thLegislature describing the program'saccomplishments.Amending 87-5-102Third Reading Votes: House 85-12; Senate48-0HB 764 Nilson Allows for the possession andtransportation of eagle parts and plumagefor religious purposes by members ofIndian tribes when permitted by federallaw.Amending 87-5-201Third Reading Votes: House 96-3; Senate 48-0HB 515 R. Jensen Authorizing the DFWP tocompensate property owners for damagescaused by grizzly bears. Property ownerswould have become eligible forcompensation upon entering into amanagement agreement with thedepartment prescribing practices designedto prevent property damage by grizzlybears. The department would not havebeen liable for damages if a claimant hadattempted to harm a grizzly bear or in anycase, for damages less than $50.Died in Senate Agriculture CommitteeHB 564 Vinger Repealing an existingprohibition on marketing fowl or rabbitsyounger than a minimum statutory age bypersons other than feed stores, hatcheries,or commercial breeders.Repealing 81-8-401 and 81-8-402Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 661 Ream Establishing a Nongame WildlifeAdvisory Council with a primaryresponsibility of making recommendationsto the DFWP on its nongame managementprograms and proposed rules.Amending 87-5-102Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeKilled:HB4 Ryan Providing for state liability andcompensation to individuals for damagesto real and personal property caused byfurbearing and game animals.Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 291 Swift Authorizing commercialpropagation of migratory birds andwaterfowl under federal permits anddefining the authority of the DFWP torestrict this practice if the director findsthat the provisions of the federal permitare not in the best interests of the state'smigratory bird or waterfowl resources.Adverse Senate Fish and Game CommitteeReport AdoptedHB 804 Bardanouve Changing the status of thegrizzly bear in Montana from "rare" to"endangered" and prohibiting grizzly bearhunting unless the Fish and GameCommission determines that the presenceof a grizzly bear constitutes a significantthreat to the safety of humans. Penaltieswould have been provided for unlawfulgrizzly bear hunting.Amending 87-2-101, 87-2-701, 87-3-102,87-5-301, and 87-5-302Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 891 Harper Requiring sampling and testingby DFWP of fish taken from Montanawaters for the existence of substancestoxic to human health.Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeJ

EQC Eighth Annual jReporl - Page 143Land UseAnnexationPassed:SB 332 Marbut Allows cities of all classes toannex land wholly surrounded by the city.Amending 7-2-4501Third Reading Votes: Senate 43-6; House66-31HB 265 McBride Eliminates some of therequirements for becoming condemnationcommissioners and limits thecompensation paid to thesecommissioners to $250 per day, includingexpenses. This act also requires thatcondemnors pay the commissioners'compensation.Amending 70-30-207Third Reading Votes: House 95-4; Senate 48-2Killed:SB 86 Thomas Reducing from 20 to 10 daysthe period for commenting on certainannexation resolutions.Amending 7-2-4313, 7-2-4314, and 7-2-4405Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeHB 643 J.Jensen Providing special proceduresfor municipal annexation of contiguous"high density" land, which was definedas an area with at least four dwellingunits per acre.HB 825 Jacobsen Generally revises the eminentdomain laws. Among other things,condemnors must now make a somewhatstronger showing of the public interest intaking the land than was formerlyrequired.Amending 70-30-104, 70-30-111, 70-30-201through 203, 70-30-206, 70-30-207, 70-30-308,70-30-309, 70-30-311, and 70-30-313; Repealing70-30-204 and 70-30-205Third Reading Votes: House 97-0; Senate 48-0Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeEminent DomainPassed:SB 170 Boylan Provides that property taken byeminent domain and later abandonedreverts to the former owner unless theinterest taken in the property was a feesimple.Amending 70-30-321 and 70-30-322Third Reading Votes: Senate 50-0; House 95-1Farmland PreservationPassed:HJR 27 Shontz Urges the U.S. Congress tofully fund research for saline seep andother related projects by the NorthernPlains Soil and Water Research Centerlocated in Sidney, MT.Third Reading Votes: House 98-1; Senate 44-5

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 144HJR 35 Jacobsen Requests that an interimcommittee be assigned to study theclassification, evaluation, assessment, andtax computation methods on agriculturallands.Third Reading Votes: House 93-0; Senate 44-4SB 316 Towe Creates a low-interest loanprogram for people wishing to enter theagricultural business. Specifically, this actcreates a 9-member Agricultural LoanAuthority empowered to purchaseagricultural loans made by financialinstitutions. The act also provides that if alandowner sells more than 80 acres to abeginning farmer at 9% or lower interest,and this sale is approved by the authority,the seller is entitled to a reduction intaxable income in an amount equal to100% of the capital gain. This tax creditcannot exceed $50,000.Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-4; House76-21HB 486 Spaeth Establishes a RangelandImprovement Loan Program to beadministered by the DNRC and fundedwith 15% of available monies from theRenewable Resource Development Grantand Loan Program. Eligibilityrequirements for loans, criteria forevaluating loan applications, and rules foradministering the program are to beestablished and a termination date of June30, 1989 is set for the program.Killed:HJR 34 Roush Requesting that an interimcommittee be assigned to studyownership and leasing of Montanafarmland and ranchland, taxes paid by theowners, use of the land, and state lawsbenefitting different types of landowners.Killed on House Second ReadingSB 296 Conover Prohibiting non-agriculturalcorporations from owning agriculturalland in Montana, and requiringcorporations presently owningagricultural land to sell those interests.Amending 35-1-107, 35-1-108, 35-12-509Died in Senate Agriculture CommitteeSB 361 Turnage Revising the criteria underwhich land is classified as agricultural fortax purposes. Land would have beenpresumed to be in agricultural use unless:covenants prevented agricultural use; or itwas used for a commercial or industrialsite; or it consisted of parcels that whentaken together were less than five acres.Amending 15-7-202Died in House Taxation CommitteeAmending 76-14-103 and 90-2-113Third Reading Votes: House 98-0; Senate 48-0Forest LandHB 851 lacobsen Declares a moratorium untilJanuary 1, 1986, on the implementation ofnew rules proposed by the Department ofRevenue changing the assessed valuationof agricultural lands. Current rules are toremain in effect until the legislature hasan opportunity to review and assess anynew rules.Third Reading Votes: House 81-4; Senate 49-0Passed:SJR 8 Severson Sends four delegates, twostate senators and two staterepresentatives, to the Western StatesLegislative Forestry Task Force.Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House75-19

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 145HJR 40 Stobie Requests that an interimcommittee be assigned to study themanagement practices of state lands andthe resources thereon, particularly forestresources.Third Reading Votes: House 90-3; Senate 46-45 McCallum Reallocates that portion ofthe Federal Forest Reserve payment thatis currently credited to county commonschool funds to specific school funds inthe counties in which the national forestsare located. These payments will nolonger indirectly be used for statewideschool equalization.HB 726 Curtiss Appropriating $240,000 fromthe Renewable Resource DevelopmentClearance Fund Account to the DSL fortimber stand improvement grants.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 864 Connelly Making mandatory thepresently authorized forest resourcesadvisory functions of the DSL andappropriating money for that purpose.Amending 76-13-104Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeAmending 17-3-213, 20-9-331, 20-9-332, and20-9-335Third Reading Votes: Senate 41-6; House58-42HB 305 Harp Increases the maximum amountof timber that may be sold on short noticein cases of emergency, for instance whena threat of fire exists, from 200,000 to1.000,000 boardfeet.Amending 77-5-201Third Reading Votes: House 96-1; Senate 50-0HB 743 Curtiss Reduces from 10 to 5 themaximum number of coniferous trees thata person may transport without a bill ofsale. The transport of more than 200pounds of coniferous tree boughs will alsorequire a bill of sale.Killed:Amending 76-13-601Third Reading Votes: House 89-7; Senate 47-0HB 239 Hemstad Requiring that money paid tothe state by the U.S. Forest Service bepaid directly to the counties in which theNational Forests are located.Amending 17-3-211Adverse Senate Education Committee ReportAdoptedParks and RecreationSee Also SB 233Passed:HB 56 Pavlovich Removes the terminationdate set for the applicability of class fourproperty taxation for land andimprovements owned by nonprofitMontana corporations and used forgolfing purposes.Repealing Sec. 2, Chapter 638, Laws of 1979Third Reading Votes: House 80-18; Senate49-0HB 833 Manuel Appropriates money forcapital projects for the 1984-85 biennium.Among other things, funding is providedfor state park acquisition, monuments,game ranges, and recreational areaimprovements.Third Reading Votes: House 81-13; Senate47-3

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 146Killed:HB 54 Kitselman Appropriating money to theDFWP for the acquisition of Lake Elmoand approximately 100 acres adjacent to itnear Billings for use as a state park.Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeNote: Funding for the purchase of this lakewas successfully provided for in HB 833.PlanningSee Also SB 112, SB 359Killed;SB 113 Thomas Providing that actions takenby planning boards are to be deemedofficial provided they are authorized by amajority of the members present.HB 101 Roush Eliminating the acquisition ofparks as a permissible use of interestearnings from the Parks and CulturalTrust Fund.Amending 15-35-108 and Repealing 23-1-108Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 104 Winslow Requiring that allocations tothe Parks and Cultural Trust Fund ceaseafter the fund has reached $15 million.Amending 76-1-304Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeHB 410 Addy Requiring the state toappropriate state highway funds to matchfederal funds available for metropolitanplanning. These federal funds would havebeen available to cities with populationsgreater than 50,000.Died in House Highways CommitteeAmending 15-35-108Killed on House Second ReadingSB 219 Van Valkenburg Prohibiting countypark boards from leasing county parklands for purposes that may impair theuse or value of those lands as publicparks.Amending 7-16-2323Adverse Senate Local Government CommitteeReport AdoptedSB 347 Gait Providing that a prescriptiveeasement may not be acquired throughrecreational uses.Died in House Judiciary CommitteeHB 385 Schuitz Appropriating $35,000 fromthe general fund to the DOA for landacquisition and development at FortMcGinnis State Monument northeast ofLewistown.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 824 Hand Appropriating $500,000 from theRIT interest account to the DOA for thedevelopment of Bannack State Park.Died in House Appropriations CommitteePublic LandsPassed:HJR 12 Swift Expresses the legislature'sopposition to the federal government'sproposal to sell large blocks of publiclands.Third Reading Votes: House 89-10; Senate29-18SB 118 Towe Requires that a public hearing beheld prior to the sale or transfer of federallands. The Commissioner of State Landsmust determine whether or not therewould be any adverse impacts to stateinterests resulting from the sale of federallands. Upon an affirmative determination,the Commissioner must conduct a publichearing. In addition, a representative fromthe DSL is required to attend all federalhearings on proposed sales of public landand the Commissioner is authorized tomake formal requests and protests inregard to federal land transfers or sales.Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-1; House72-23i

EQC Eighth Annual Report Page U7-HB 122 Addy Authorizes the Board of LandCommissioners to set the primary term ofoil and gas leases at not more than tenyears or less than five years, unless theBoard determines a shorter term isnecessary to ensure full compensation foroil and gas resources. Previously, theprimary term of state oil leases was fixedat ten years.Amending 77-3-421Third Reading Votes: House 96-0; Senate 49-0HB 391 Stobie Directs the Board of LandCommissioners, in the adoption of newrules establishing the value of cabin sitelicenses or leases on state lands, to utilizea method which does not cause unduedisruption to current licensees andlessees. Licensees and lessees may assigntheir property right to another person atthe existing rate while new cabin sitelicenses and leases will be valuedaccording to a competitive biddingprocedure.Third Reading Votes: House 85-0; Senate 47-0HB 154 Spaeth Addresses a problem thatsometimes arises when a lease of stateland is transferred from one lessee toanother. Under present law animprovement placed on the land is oftenpurchased by the new lessee at a disputedprice. While an arbitration procedureexisted, it required the lessees to agree onan arbitrator. This act authorizes theCommissioner of State Lands to appointan arbitrator should the lessees fail to doso. Further, either party is allowed theopportunity to petition the district courtfor judicial review of the DSL's finaldecision.Amending 77-6-306Third Reading Votes: House 94-1; Senate 46-1HB 155 Spaeth Establishes an arbitrationprocedure for disputes between lessees ofstate lands and parties receiving rights-ofwayeasements across leasehold estates.The parties may also petition the districtcourt for judicial review of thisprocedure.HB 432 Devlin Prohibits the DSL fromremoving preference rights of lessees ofstate lands for violating terms of a lease.Penalties will now be limited to fines orlease cancellation.Amending 77-6-205Third Reading Votes: House 95-1; Senate 49-0HB 815 Fabrega Requires the DOC to identifyrailroad rights-of-way scheduled forabandonment that may have potential forlocal transportation service. Thedepartment is authorized to determine thefeasibility of and negotiate for theacquisition of abandoned railroad rightsof-wayfor local governmenttransportation authorities. Rights-of-waymay not be retained by an agency of stategovernment.Third Reading Votes: House 89-11; Senate37-11Amending 77-2-107Third Reading Votes: House 93-1; Senate 47-1Killed:HB 255 Wallin Requires that state landsproposed for purchase, exchange, or salebe appraised by a qualified landappraiser.Amending 77-1-202, 77-1-203, 77-2-211, and77-2-323Third Reading Votes: House 84-6; Senate 50-0SB 191 Blaylock Freezing the minimum baserental rate for state-owned grazing lands.A study would have been conducted todetermine what the appropriate rentalrate should be.Amending 77-6-507Died in Senate Agriculture Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 148SB 192 Blaylock Providing that the minimumcrop share rental for agricultural leaseson state land may be no less than 30% ofthe annual crop.Amending 77-6-501Died in Senate Agriculture CommitteeSB 341 Eck Reimbursing local governmentsfor major expenses incurred in providingfire protection and law enforcementservices on state property.Killed:SB 396 Marbut Providing for conservationeasements for riparian habitat in certaininstances and exempting such easementsfrom review by local planning authorities.Amending 76-6-102. 76-6-104. 76-6-203,76-6-206, and 87-2-305Died in Senate Natural Resources CommitteeAdverse Senate State AdministrationCommittee Report AdoptedSpecial Districts: IrrigationSpecial Districts:ConservationPassed:HB 349 Spaeth Establishes a ConservationPractice Loan Program and clarifiesexisting law pertaining to conservationdistricts. The loan program is designed tofinance landowners' conservationpractices as approved by the Board ofSupervisors of a conservation district.Amending 76-15-301. 76-15-311. 76-15-313.76-15-319, 76-15-501, 76-15-502, 76-15-512,76-15-515 through 76-15-517, 76-15-523,76-15-524, 76-15-527, and 76-15-804Third Reading Votes: House 85-0; Senate 48-2SB 276 Aklestad Provides that the Board ofCommissioners of irrigation districts may,by resolution, establish that district votesare to be cast by 1-acre rather than40-acre blocks.Amending 85-7-1710Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-0; House 83-4SB 277 Conover Authorizes the Board ofCommissioners of irrigation districts torefuse delivery of water to any personwho has unsatisfied financial obligationsto the district. Previously, a person wasrequired to be two years delinquent beforesuch action was permitted.Amending 85-7-1902HB 509 Asay Allows all conservation districtsto be reorganized into seven supervisorareas, each area with its own electedsupervisor on the Board of Supervisors.Previously, conservation districts withoutincorporated municipalities wereauthorized to have no more than fivesupervisor areas.Amending 76-15-311Third Reading Votes: House 93-1; Senate 49-0Third Reading Votes: Senate 44-2; House 79-7SB 278 Conover Increases from $125,000 to$150,000 the maximum financialobligation that a board of commissionersmay bind an irrigation district to withoutobtaining membership approval.Amending 85-7-1904Third Reading Votes: Senate 38-8; House 86-6

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 149SB 280 Fuller Provides that an irrigationdistrict may contract with the federalgovernment only upon approval of amajority of its members representing atleast 50% of the acreage in the district.Amending 85-7-1956Third Reading Votes: Senate 45-0; House 92-1HB 409 Veleber Exempting from irrigationdistrict tax assessment tracts of land lessthan one acre in size and unable toreceive water. In order to be grantedassessment relief, the landowner wouldhave had to file an affidavit attesting tothe tract's inability to receive water.Amending 85-7-2103 and 85-7-2104Died in House Agriculture CommitteeSB 294 Hazelbaker Eliminates the minimumadministrative charge assessed againsttracts of land less than one acre in sizethat are unable to receive water fromirrigation districts. Also, irrigationdistricts will now be able to levyassessments to comply with contractswith the State of Montana to cover theconstruction costs of new gravityirrigation systems for irrigation of statelands.Amending 85-7-2103 and 85-7-2104Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-0; House 91-2HB 662 Schye Clarifies that irrigation districtsmay engage in electrical powerproduction.Amending 85-7-1961Third Reading Votes: House 91-4; Senate35-12SubdivisionsSee Also SB 233, SB 406Passed:HJR 20 Marks Requests the DHES to reviewand revise rules adopted under theMontana Sanitation in Subdivisions Actin order to minimize the costs ofsubdivision review.Third Reading Votes: House 77-21; Senate49-0SB 87 Thomas Allows a local government toincrease from one year to three the initialperiod of approval for preliminary plats ofproposed subdivisions.Amending 76-3-610Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-0; House 97-1Killed:HB 254 Ernst Repealing the DOA's authorityto conduct audits of irrigation districts,conservancy districts, and rural firedistricts. This bill would have movedresponsibility for the financial audit andbookkeeping of these districts to countycommissioners.Amending 2-7-503, 2-7-514, 7-33-2105,85-7-1616, 85-7-1913, and 85-7-2027; Repealing85-9-611Died in House Local Government CommitteeHB 95 Donaldson Appropriates $58,000 to theDHES for sanitary review of subdivisionsfor the biennium ending June 30, 1983.Third Reading Votes: House 92-7; Senate 46-2HB 118 Harper Increases the per lot feechargeable for subdivision review from$30 to $48. Also, a loan for up to $50,000from the general fund is authorized untilsufficient fees have been received to fullyfund this program.Amending 76-4-105Third Reading Votes: House 66-31; Senate44-5

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 150Killed:SB 71 Goodover Providing that divisions ofland completed prior to July 1, 1973 arenot subdivisions within the purview of theSubdivision and Platting Act except asregards surveying requirements.Reimbursement of costs to localgovernments for subdivision reviewwould have been provided for as well.Amending 76-4-105, 76-4-1108, and 76-4-1212Killed on Senate Second ReadingAmending 76-3-207Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeHB 645 Sales Requiring that property taxes bepaid in full before a parcel of land may bedivided.SB 140 Story Granting local governing bodiesthe authority to conduct sanitary reviewsof proposed subdivisions under theSanitation in Subdivisions Act. A localgoverning body, if certified by DHES asbeing competent to review subdivisions,could have supplanted the department'sAmending 75-6-112. 76-4-102, 76-4-104 through76-4-108, 76-4-121 through 76-4-125, 76-4-127,76-4-129, and 76-3-130Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeAmending 76-3-207 and 76-3-303Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdoptedHB 846 Lory Authorizing local governingbodies to adopt regulations that define"subdivision" more inclusively than thestate has done in the Subdivision andPlatting Act and allowing local entities torestrict or eliminate the use of exemptionsunder that act.SB 176 Marbut Requiring that certificates ofsurvey include diagrams of all easementsand rights-of-way of record existing at thetime the certificates are filed.Amending 76-3-103, 76-3-104, 76-3-201.76-3-207, and 76-3-504Adverse Senate Agriculture Committee ReportAdoptedAmending 76-3-404Adverse Senate Local Government CommitteeReport AdoptedHB 588 Swift Clarifying that county roadscreated for subdivisions and dedicated tothe public shall remain in publicownership even upon abandonmentunless an order to abandon specificallydivests the public of its title.Amending 7-14-2107 and 7-14-2615Died in Senate Judiciary CommitteeHB 762 Lory Generally revising Montanasubdivision and local planning laws.Among the many significant changes thisbill sought were: requirements that localland use plans set forth community policyregarding quality and location of urbandevelopment, including descriptions ofpresent and future housing densities andtypes of existing and potential publicservice facilities provided; and tighterdefinitions of "occasional sales." "minorsubdivisions." "common boundaryrelocations." and "subdivision"; deletionof exemptions for "court ordereddivisions," "reservations of life estates,"and "use for agricultural purposes."HB 613 Lory Requiring deposit of subdivisionfees in the state general fund andproviding that funding for subdivisionreview be derived from the state generalfund. Also, a ceiling of $30 per lot wouldhave been placed on subdivision fees.Amending 76-1-606, 76-3-103, 76-3-104,76-3-201. 76-3-207. 76-3-504. 76-3-505. 76-3-601,76-3-604, 76-3-605, 76-3-609, and 76-4-125;Repealing 76-3-210Adverse Senate Agriculture Committee ReportAdopted

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 151HB 770 Hansen Restricting the exemption forcertain condominiums from compliancewith the Montana Subdivision andPlatting Act, and requiring statesanitation review for all condominiumsunder the Sanitation in Subdivisions Act.Conversions of existing structures that donot comply with local zoning ordinanceswould have been subject to local reviewunder the Subdivision and Platting Act,and future transfers of condominiumunits would not have been permittedunless water and sewer facilities receivedapproval by the state.Amending 76-3-203. 76-3-301, 76-4-111, and76-4-122Died in Conference CommitteeHB 830 Hansen Allowing local governments tocharge an additional fee for review ofminor subdivisions.Amending 76-4-128Adverse Senate Local Government CommitteeReport Adoptedwould have been reduced from 30 to 14days and the time limit for formal actionon proposed zoning regulations by aboard of county commissioners similarlyreduced.Amending 76-2-205Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeHB 240 Hansen Increasing from 40% to 60%the percentage of freeholders necessary tooverrule a board of countycommissioner's resolution to create azoning district.Amending 76-2-205Died in House Local Government CommitteeHB 538 Sands Reducing the number of votesnecessary to make a change in localzoning regulations from 75% to 60% ofthe members of a legislative body of citiesor towns.Amending 76-2-305Killed on House Second ReadingZoningOtherPassed:HB 630 Donaldson Authorizes politicalsubdivisions of the state to adopt land useKilled:regulations for the management offloodplains within unregulated sheet floodareas. Applicable areas must bedesignated by the Federal EmergencyManagement Agency.Amending 76-5-301Third Reading Votes: House 96-2; Senate 47-1SB 112 Thomas Requiring a county planningboard serving as a zoning commission togive notice of and conduct a publichearing on adoption or amendment ofzoning regulations. Also, the protestperiod for proposed zoning regulationsKilled:SB 85 Thomas Changing the notice periodrequired for public hearings on urbanrenewal plans from not less than 10 normore than 30 days to not less than fivenor more than 15 days.Amending 7-15-4215Died in Senate Local Government CommitteeSB 124 McCallum Authorizing boards ofcounty commissioners to amend thedescribed limits of proposed cities andtowns seeking incorporation when suchan amendment is consistent with existingstatutes and in the best interest of thecounty.Amending 7-2-4101Died in Senate Local Government Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 152HB 596 Kadas Providing boards of countycommissioners, after notice and ahearing, with the authority to determinethe number and term of office formembers on appointed boards andcommissions.Amending 7-16-2203, 7-16-2302 through7-16-2304, 7-21-3401, 7-21-3402, 7-22-2103,7-22-2104, 7-22-2411, 7-22-2412, 7-35-2108,22-1-308, 50-2-104, 76-1-211. 76-2-101, 76-2-102,76-2-220, and 76-2-222Adverse Senate Local Government CommitteeReport AdoptedMineral and Petroleum DevelopmentExploration. Operationand ReclamationPassed:SB 67 Keating Modifies a limitation on theauthority of the Board of LandCommissioners for the issuance of coalleases to foreign interests by allowing theBoard to issue such leases when thecountry of residence of the foreigninterest provides similar privileges tocitizens of the United States.Amending 77-3-305of the amount owed. The Board's powerto require implementation of measures toprevent contamination and damage tosurrounding land was also expanded.Changes in the rates of the producersprivilege tax must now be madeaccording to the Montana AdministrativeProcedure Act.Amending 2-8-103, 15-36-107, 82-11-111, and82-11-131 through 82-11-133Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-1; House 91-8HB 214 Howe Authorizes the DSL to require asingle annual report from miningoperations that possess multiple permitsunder the Montana Strip andUnderground Mine Reclamation Act.Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House86-12Amending 82-4-237Third Reading Votes: House 92-0; Senate 48-0SB 148 Himsl Reestablishes the Board of Oiland Gas Conservation and reschedules itfor sunset review in 1989. Collection ofthe Oil and Gas Producers Privilege Taxis transferred to the Department ofRevenue, and the penalty for late paymentof this tax is increased from 10% to 25%HB 225 Asay Grants the Division of Workers'Compensation the authority to employadditional qualified coal mine inspectors.Amending 50-73-401Third Reading Votes: House 99-0; Senate 47-0

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 153HB 287 Harper Provides that the reclamationbond required under the Opencut MiningAct may be greater than $1000 per acre ifthe DSL determines that the cost ofrestoring disturbed land exceeds thatamount.to adopt rules for issuance of suchwaivers.Amending 82-4-254Third Reading Votes: House 83-1; Senate 49-0Amending 82-4-433Third Reading Votes: House 92-7; Senate 48-0SB 350 Tveit Requires the Board of Oil andGas Conservation to adopt rules requiringidentification of geophysical explorationcrews operating in Montana anddesignate areas where geophysicalactivities are not permitted.Amending 82-1-101 and 82-1-104Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-1; House 97-0SB 369 Graham Repeals the prohibition on theissuance of additional strip andunderground mining permits to operatorswho have repeatedly violated statereclamation laws.Amending 82-4-251Third Reading Votes: Senate 50-0; House 96-2HB 438 Harp Revises the confidentialityrequirement placed on reports ofstratigraphic test wells filed with theBoard of Oil and Gas Conservation.Operators will not have to provide samplecuttings and chips to the board until threeyears after drilling, at which time theybecome public information. Prior topassage of this act, this information wasrequired to be provided to the boardwithin six months and was then withheldfrom public view for three years.Amending 82-11-125Third Reading Votes: House 85-10; Senate48-0HB 815 HoUiday Allows the DSL to waive civilpenalties for minor violations of theMontana Strip and Underground MineReclamation Act when such violations donot pose potential harm to public health,public safety, or the environment. TheBoard of Land Commissioners is requiredKilled:SB 164 Shaw Requiring that lessors ofundeveloped land pay their lessees moneyreceived for the right to conductgeophysical exploration on the propertysubject to the lease. Sums received fordamage to the leasehold interest bygeophysical exploration would also havebeen payable to the lessee.Amending 82-1-109 and 82-1-110Adverse Senate Natural Resources CommitteeReport AdoptedSB 416 Ochsner Amending the definition of"preparatory work" in the Strip andUnderground Mine Siting Act to includethe construction of new railroad tracksbetween proposed mines and an existingrailroad.Amending 82-4-103Adverse Senate Natural Resources CommitteeReport AdoptedSB 442 Tveit Requiring that oil and gasproduced from wells within the state bemeasured and reported before a change ofpossession or control occurs. Penalties forpotential violations were included.Amending 45-2-311Adverse Senate Natural Resources CommitteeReport AdoptedHB 842 J.Jensen Generally revising the MetalMine Reclamation Act by clarifying thepurpose of reclamation, requiringimmediate notice of emergencies to theDSL and requiring reclamation ofdisturbed land to the same or comparablecondition as existed before mining. A newsection would have been added to the act

EQC Eighth AnnuaJ Reportallowing groundwater users to seekdamages from mine owners for loss ordegradation of wells caused by miningoperations.Amending 82-4-302, 82-4-303, 82-4-336,82-4-338, and 82-4-341Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeHB 921 Keenan Requiring the governor's officeto conduct an inquiry into the legalresponsibilities for reclamation of landsaffected by mining and smelting in theButte-Anaconda area and to examine thesocioeconomic impacts of the closure ofthese operations. The purpose would havebeen to identify possible legal remediesavailable to the state and localgovernments for mitigating those impacts.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeLocal Impact Mitigation:Coal Miningwill take place in the First JudicialDistrict Court of Montana.Amending 90-6-205, 90-6-206, 90-6-208, and90-6-209Third Reading Votes: Senate 44-2; House 94-5SB 245 D. Manning Extends the deadline forexpenditure of funds appropriated to theDOH before June 30, 1979 from the CoalArea Highways Improvement Accountuntil June 30, 1985.Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House 96-0HB 520 Roush Clarifies the designationprocess used for determining which localgovernments and school districts areeligible for coal board impact grants.Amending 90-6-207Third Reading Votes: House 100-0; Senate48-0HB 556 Asay Allows the Coal Board to makegrants to qualified applicants for thepurpose of paying part or all of anapplicant's credit obligation for prepaidproperty taxes.Third Reading Votes: House 60-39; Senate46-1Killed:HB 105 Winslow Allocates 10% of the interestearnings from the Local Impact andEducation Trust Fund to postsecondaryvocational-technical centers and adultbasic education programs.Amending 90-6-211Third Reading Votes: House 72-25; Senate42-5SB 186 Elliott Authorizes the Coal Board toaward loans as well as grants from theLocal Impact and Education Trustaccount. This act also authorizes loansand grants to be awarded to federallyrecognized Indian tribes provided theyagree to waive their immunity in theevent of disputes arising from thetransaction. Adjudication of such disputesHB 109 Winslow Separating the Local Impactand Education Trust Fund into twoaccounts.Amending 15-35-108, 20-9-343, 90-1-108,90-6-202, 90-6-205, 90-6-207, and 90-6-211Killed on House Second ReadingSB 202 Towe Establishing a method ofdetermining coal development impactcosts incurred by local government unitsand fixing the maximum appropriationavailable for such costs from the coaltrust income earnings. The methodincluded a formula based on coal areaemployment and per capita costs forgovernmental services.Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdopted

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 155Local Impact Mitigation:Hard-rock MiningSee Also HB 724Passed:SJR 22 Conover Requests the federalgovernment and the DOH to cooperatewith Stillwater County in funding repairsto Montana Secondary Highway No. 419needed as a result of transportation ofchromium ore for the U.S. strategicmineral stockpile.Third Reading Votes: Senate 38-10; House95-1SB 227 Towe Allocates revenues from theMMLT for the purpose of operating theHard Rock Mining Impact Board. This actwas self-repealing upon passage of HB446.significant change is the inclusion of aprovision that enables either a mineraldeveloper or a local government topetition for modifications in MiningImpact Plans.Amending 82-4-335, 90-6-305. 90-6-307, and90-6-309Third Reading Votes: House 83-2; Senate 49-0HB 870 Fabrega Creates a mechanism forsharing the property tax base increasethat results from the development of newlarge-scale hard rock mineral operationsamong those municipalities, counties, andschool districts that experience increaseddemands for government services.Third Reading Votes: House 96-0; Senate 48-0Amending 15-1-501 and 90-6-304Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-0; House 90-2146 D. Brown Amends the MMLT suchthat the first $250,000 of mineralproduction is exempt from the tax. It alsomodifies, slightly, the rates of taxation forproduction greater than $250,000, andcreates a Hard Rock Mining TrustAccount which, starting in Tax Year 1985,will receive one-third of revenuescollected under the MMLT. Funds in thisaccount will be administered by the HardRock Mining Impact Board to bedistributed to communities thatexperience socioeconomic impacts as aresult of mining slowdowns orshutdowns.Amending 15-1-501, 15-37-101, 15-37-103, and90-6-303 through 90-6-306Third Reading Votes: House 88-9; Senate 42-6HB 472 D. Brown Generally revises the HardRock Mining Impact Act. This actmodifies the mechanics of the Impact Act,which was designed to assist localgovernments in dealing with growtheffects associated with the development oflarge mining operations. The mostKilled:HB 31 Harrington Creating a Metal MinesBoard to administer grants to localgovernment units out of revenues fromthe MMLT in order to lessen economichardships resulting from metal mining.This bill would have earmarked 25» of therevenue from the tax for this purpose.Died in House Taxation CommitteeSB 379 Lynch Imposing a mining impact taxon any mining company with a workforce of at least 700 employees thatreduces that work force by one-halfduring a nine-month period. The taxwould have been payable three monthsafter the workforce had been reduced,with the tax equal to the impact costsincurred by the local governments asdetermined by the Department ofCommerce. Failure to pay this tax wouldhave resulted in a lien against the realand personal property of the mineraldeveloper.Killed on Senate Second Reading

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 156HB 640 Harrington Appropriating $300,000 ofthe revenue collected through the MMLTdirectly to the local governments of Butte-Silver Bow and Anaconda-Deer Lodge.This money would have been used formitigating the socioeconomic impacts ofthe Anaconda Co. shutdown.Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeHB 903 Fagg Appropriating $100,000 from theFederal Abandoned Mines ReclamationAccount to the DSL to rectifyenvironmental damages caused by miningin the Stillwater-Boulder River complex.Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeHB 100 Kemmis Creates the Montana In-StateInvestment Fund that is to consist of 25%of the revenue deposited after June 30,1983 in the coal severance trust fund. TheMontana Economic Development Board isalso created, and given power to makeinvestments benefitting the Montanaeconomy. Preferences will be given toinvestments in businesses that are locallyowned, provide jobs to Montanans, paythe prevailing wage, are small to mediumsized,maintain and improve a clean andhealthful environment with emphasis onenergy efficiency, and promote Montana'sagricultural products.Amending 17-6-201 and 17-6-211Third Reading Votes: House 80-19; Senate42-8HB 103 Winslow Makes the Coal TaxOversight Committee a permanentsubcommittee of the Revenue OversightCommittee.Third Reading Votes: House 88-6; Senate 50-0Taxation and RoyaltiesCoal SeveranceHB 110 Winslow Establishes a Cultural andAesthetic Projects Advisory Committee tosubmit recommendations to the legislatureon cultural and aesthetic grant proposalsfunded by the coal severance tax.Amending 22-3-112Third Reading Votes: House 88-9; Senate 48-1See Also HB 101, HB 104,SB 359, and HB 885Passed:I Vincent Allocates $3,525,000 of theinterest from the coal severance tax trustfund to the Montana EconomicDevelopment Fund to be appropriated to11 programs designed to enhance thedevelopment of the Montana economy.Third Reading Votes: House 95-4; Senate 48-0SB 185 Gait Increases from 20,000 to 50,000tons per year the maximum quantity ofcoal that can be produced and remaineligible for severance and gross proceedstax exemptions. Coal production of lessthan 50,000 tons per year will be exemptfrom the coal severance tax, but the valueof production of more than 20,000 tonswill be used to compute the tax if morethan 50,000 tons is produced. Also, coalproducers will be exempt from the gross

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 157proceeds tax on one-half the contractsales price of coal if less than 50,000 tonsis produced.Amending 15-6-208 and 15-35-103Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-0; House 82-4SB 264 Graham Allows the Department ofRevenue to compute a value for coal if amine operator subjects it to processingthat improves its quality.Amending 15-35-107Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-3; House 87-7HB 706 Asay Excludes a portion of themineral royalties paid to the federalgovernment, state government, orrecognized Indian tribes from the coalseverance tax. This royalty exclusion willbe phased until July 1, 1987, when only15% per ton worth of these royaltypayments will be subject to coal severancetaxation.Amending 15-35-102Third Reading Votes: House 92-7; Senate 45-4HB 730 Shontz Directs the DOH to develop aprogram for the reconstruction of thestate's highways, and creates a 10-yearHighway Reconstruction Trust Account tofund this program. Deposited into thisaccount will be the revenues from theGasoline License Tax, Diesel Fuel andVolatile Liquids Tax, 371/2% of the oil andgas royalties the state receives from thefederal government, 6% of total coalseverance tax revenues in Fiscal Year1987, and 12% of total coal severance taxrevenues for succeeding fiscal yearsthrough 1993. The DOH is instructed tospend these funds according to need.Money from this fund cannot be used forroutine repairs.Amending 15-35-108 and 17-3-201Third Reading Votes: House 82-3; Senate 50-0Killed:HB 11 Pistoria Allocating $10 million eachyear from coal severance tax collectionsfor the construction of primary andsecondary roads. The percentage of thecoal severance tax allocated to theconstitutional trust fund would haveremained the same but all otherallocations would have decreasedproportionally.Amending 15-35-108Died in House Taxation CommitteeSB 96 Elliott Eliminating the coal severancetax income subfund and earmarkedallocations from it, and providing fordeposit of 85% of the interest andearnings from the Coal Severance TaxTrust Fund directly into the state generalfund.Amending 17-5-703 and 17-5-704Died in House Taxation CommitteeSB 97 Elliott Eliminating earmarking of coalseverance tax revenues to the AlternativeEnergy Research Development andDemonstration account and the CountyPlanning account beginning July 1, 1985.Thereafter those revenues would havebeen deposited in the general fund.Amending 15-35-108 and 90-4-103Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdoptedSB 365 Goodover Increasing the allocation ofcoal severance tax money to the generalfund by eliminating allocations to theAlternative Energy Research and CoalArea Highway Improvement accounts.Grants from the Coal Board for localimpact mitigation would also have beenlimited to $1 million during any bienniumunless awarded in association with a newmajor facility.Amending 15-38-108, 90-6-202, and 90-6-205;Repealing 90-4-101 through 90-4-108 and90-6-210Died in Senate Taxation Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 158SB 434 Towe Allocating 15% of coal severancetax revenues for the reconstruction ofhighways.Amending 15-35-108Died in Senate Taxation CommitteeHB 442 Seifert Appropriating money from theCoal Severance Tax Trust Fund for thereconstruction, maintenance and repair ofhighways, streets and roads.Killed on House Second Reading Note: Thisbill required a 3/4 vote in each house forapproval as it was a constitutionalamendment.HB 443 Seifert Seeking to amend the MontanaConstitution to reduce the amount of coalseverance tax revenue to be allocated tothe Coal Severance Tax Trust Fund from50% to 30% and requiring that 20% of thecoal tax revenue and interest be used forhighway construction.Killed on House Second Readinghave decreased those percentages to 15%and 25% respectively and established twonew allocations to the counties in whichthe money was generated.Amending 17-3-201 and 20-9-343Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 413 Bardanouve Redistributing moniesreceived by the state under the federalMineral Lands Leasing Act currentlyallocated for education. This bill wouldhave allocated that portion of this royaltypayment now deposited in the statewideequalization fund to the common schoolfunds of the counties in which theminerals were extracted. The moneywould have been distributed according tothe amounts collected in each county.Amending 17-3-201, 20-9-331, 20-9-333, and20-9-343Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 918 Ellerd Appropriating money from theCoal Severance Tax Fund for the purposeof financing prison expansion.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeMetalliferous Mines License TaxSee Also HB 31, SB 227,HB 446, and HB 640Passed:Federal PaymentsSee Also HB 730Killed:HB 237 Devlin Redistributing monies receivedby the state under the federal MineralLands Leasing Act. Currently, 37V2% ofthis money goes to the statewide highwayaccount and 62Vj% to the statewideschool equalization fund. This bill wouldSB 108 B. Brown Requires a quarterly reportof the market value of merchantablemetals or gems extracted in the state forpurposes of determining revenues payableunder the MMLT, and requires the yearlypayment of the tax to accompany theMarch 1 report. The penalty provisionsfor late payment of this tax are alsorevised.Amending 15-37-102, 15-37-104 through15-37-106, and 15-37-108Third Reading Votes: Senate 43-6; House 92-6

EQC Eighth AnnuaJ fleport - Page 159Killed:SB 299 Towe Revising the rates of the MMLTexactly as done in HB 446 except addinga surcharge for increases in the base priceof metals. One-third of the revenuescollected under this tax would have beendeposited into a Hard-Rock MiningImpact Account.Amending 15-1-501, 15-37-103, and 90-6-304through 90-6-306Died in Senate Taxation CommitteeHB 380 Switzer Repealing the MMLT.Amending 15-1-501 and Repealing 15-37-101through 15-37-112Died in House Taxation Committeereports and statements are used forcomputing oil and gas net proceeds taxes.Amending 15-23-103. 15-23-104, and 15-23-602Third Reading Votes: Senate 50-0; House 95-1SB 413 Gage Limits to 70% the amount offederal excise tax paid by oil and gasproducers that may be deducted whencomputing the state's net proceeds tax.This act eliminates the need for areassessment of net proceeds taxes afteroil and gas producers receive refundsfrom overpayment of windfall profitstaxes.Amending 15-23-603 and 15-23-605Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-0; House 93-3HB 582 Switzer Provides for additionaldeductions from the net proceeds tax onnon-coal and non-metal mines. The newallowable deductions include additionalkinds of insurance premiums, welfare andretirement payments for employees,testing costs in compliance with federaland state health and safety laws, assayingand sampling costs, and plant securitycosts.Amending 15-23-502 and 15-23-503Net and Gross Proceeds TaxesSee Also HB 333, SB 437,and SB 462Killed:Third Reading Votes: House 84-4; Senate 50-0Passed:SB 110 Towe Provides for the assessment ofinterest on late payments of net proceedsand gross proceeds taxes at the rate of 1%per month until paid in full. Taxpayersalready paying interest on generalproperty taxes are not subject to thispenalty.Third Reading Votes: Senate 50-0; House 96-3SB 342 Gage Changes the deadline fromMarch 31 to April 15 for filing reports onoil and gas pipelines and statements ofsales for oil and gas operations. TheseSB 231 Keating Reducing the taxable portionof net proceeds from oil and gasdevelopment from 100% to 70%.Amending 15-6-131Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdoptedHB 717 Mueller Reducing the taxable portionof net proceeds from mineraldevelopment from 100% to 80%, exceptfor petroleum and natural gas.Amending 15-6-131Killed on House Second Reading

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 160Oil and Gas Severance TaxesPassed:SB 159 Keating Reduces the oil severance taxrate from 6% to 5% beginning April 1,1985.Amending 15-36-101Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-4; House58-40HB 333 Roush Extends for ten years theseverance tax and net proceeds taxexemptions for natural gas produced fromwells deeper than 5,000 feet. Theexemption from the severance tax is100%, while only one-half of net proceedsare exempt.Amending 15-36-121Third Reading Votes: House 79-10; Senate47-3HB 418 Yardley Earmarks 33 1/3% of the oilseverance tax to the local governmentblock grant account. A $42 million cap isplaced on this account for the bienniumending June 30, 1985.Amending 15-1-501 and 15-36-112HB 26 Jacobsen Allocating a portion of oiland gas severance tax revenues directly tocounties. Currently, producing countiesreceive the amount of these taxesattributable to increases in the productionthat occurs within that county. Thisrevenue is then distributed among countyand municipal governments based onpopulation. This bill would have allocated25% of the oil and gas severance taxgenerated in a particular county to thatcounty regardless of increases inproduction.Amending 15-36-112Died in House Appropriations CommitteeSB 437 Gage Reducing by 2/3 for a period offive years the oil and gas severance taxand the oil and gas net proceeds tax onnew production. These taxes would havebeen imposed at the existing rate for oiland gas produced from existing wells.Amending 15-36-101Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdoptedSB 462 Towe Increasing the rates of the oiland gas severance taxes from 6% and2.65%, respectively, to 8% for both. Oftotal oil and gas severance tax revenues,25% would have been allocated for grantsand loans to local governments impactedby oil and gas development. Also, thetaxable percentage of net proceeds fromoil and gas wells would have beenreduced from 100% to 66 2/3%.Amending 15-6-131, 15-36-101, and 15-36-112Killed:SB 8 Stimatz Allocating 1/12 of oilseverance tax collections to a highwayreconstruction account for making majorimprovements on the state's primary andsecondary systems.Amending 15-36-112Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeDied in Senate Taxation CommitteeHB 713 J. Jensen Increasing from 2.65% to 6%the rate of the natural gas severance taxand allocating 56% of the revenues fromthis tax to an earmarked revenue fund foruse in low-income energy assistance andweatherization programs.Amending 15-1-501, 15-36-101, and 15-36-112Died in House Taxation Committee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 161Resource Indemnity Trust TaxSee Also HB 200, HB 610, HB 824Passed:SB 72 B. Brown Requires mineral producersto prepare a quarterly report of grossyield from mineral production forpurposes of assessing the RIT tax. Thepenalty for late payment and latereporting of this tax is made stricter.HB 876 Jacobsen Appropriates $150,000 fromthe RIT interest account, provided moniesare available after allocations are madepursuant to HB 447, to DNRC for use bythe Sheridan County Conservation Districtfor evaluation, quantification, andmapping of groundwater resources in theancestral Missouri River channel andadjacent areas.Third Reading Votes: House 100-0; Senate48-0Amending 15-38-105 through 15-38-107Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-1; House 92-3HB 334 Roush Appropriates $50,000 from theRIT interest account, provided monies areavailable after allocations are madepursuant to HB 447 (GeneralAppropriations Act), HB 876, HB 745, andHB 597, to the 10-County TriangleConservation District Saline Seep ControlProject.Third Reading Votes: House 91-5; Senate 47-1HB 597 Schye Appropriates $48,000 from theRIT interest account, provided monies areavailable after allocations are madepursuant to HB 447, HB 876, and HB 745,to the city of Glasgow and Valley Countyfor a joint city-county water project.Third Reading Votes: House 92-5; Senate 46-1HB 745 Schye Appropriates $100,000 from theRIT interest account, provided monies areavailable after allocations are madepursuant to HB 447 and HB 876, as agrant for the purpose of applying to theFERC for a license to install ahydroelectric plant on the Tiber Dam.Initially, the grant was intended for theMilk River Irrigation District, but wasamended so that half of any moneyavailable under this act would beallocated to Liberty County, which is apartner in a competing application for thesame FERC license.Third Reading Votes: House 71-22; Senate50-0Killed:HB 108 Manuel Appropriating 5% of the RITinterest account for use by the CascadeCounty Conservation District to share thecost of a seven-year flood control andirrigation improvement program for theMuddy Creek Special Water Project Area.Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeHB 260 D. Brown Clarifying language in theRIT Tax Act to state unequivocally thatfunds may be used to mitigate miningimpacts.Amending 15-38-203Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommitteeHB 724 Daily Allocating 30% of the interestincome from the RIT account to a Hard-Rock Mining Mitigation account.Warrants from this account would havebeen drawn by the Hard-Rock MiningImpact Board, but only for mitigating thephysical adverse environmental impactsof hard-rock mining and not thesocioeconomic impacts.Amending 15-38-202, 90-6-304, and 90-6-305Died in Senate Finance and ClaimsCommittee

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 162Other Taxation and RoyaltiesSee Also HB 706tax in an amount equal to similar taxespaid to tribal governments in Montana.Died in Senate Taxation CommitteePassed:HB 81 Nordtvedt Provides for interest to becharged on deficiency assessments andfor interest credits to be allowed onoverpayments of the coal severance teix,oil and gas severance taxes, mininglicense taxes, and others.Third Reading Votes: House 90-0; Senate 49-0SB 243 Towe Creates a five-year limitation forthe collection of unpaid taxes oncentrally assessed property, coalseverance taxes, oil and gas severancetaxes, mining license taxes, RIT taxes,and others.Third Reading Votes: Senate 42-8; House 97-0SB 441 Tveit Requires that oil and gasproducers who regularly pay royalties bycheck, draft or order to provide theroyalty owner with a record each time aroyalty payment is made, stating thenumber of barrels of oil and/or cubic feetof gas for which payment is being made,the amount of taxes withheld, and the netvalue of the royalty.Amending 45-2-311 and 82-10-102Third Reading Votes: Senate 49-0; House 93-5HB 482 Hand Including oil and gas facilities inthe meaning of the term "Major NewIndustrial Facility" for the purposes ofproperty tax prepayment.Amending 15-16-201Died in House Taxation CommitteeHB 829 Saunders Imposing a severance tax onthe extraction of hard-rock minerals,including precious or semi-precious gemsand stones. Revenues from this tax wouldhave been allocated equally between thecoal severance trust fund and a hard-rockmining impact account. The rates of thetax would have increased with a rise inthe value of the product; the first $250,000worth of production being exempt, andthe highest rate, for production over $1million, being 3V2%. Any MMLT paidwould have been credited against this taxliability,as would 150% of all moneycontributed to local governments forordinary public services required becauseof the mining operation. This bill was aproposed referendum and would haverequired citizen approval in the nextgeneral election had it passed thelegislature.Amending 90-6-205, 90-6-304, and 90-6-305Died in House Taxation CommitteeHB 616 HoUiday Provides that the obligationto make royalty payments is "of theessence" in oil and gas leases. Royaltiesunpaid 180 days from the date due will beassessed interest at the maximum rateallowed by law.Killed:Amending 82-10-102Third Reading Votes: House 84-0; Senate 49-0SB 407 Gage Allowing a credit on the coalseverance tax, the oil and gas severancetax, the mining license taxes, and the RITOtherPassed:HB 634 Compton Allows a Board of CountyCommissioners to lease mineral interestsin land without an appraisal. Previously,all county lands offered for sale, lease, orexchange had to be appraised.Amending 7-8-2513Third Reading Votes: House 97-1; Senate 49-0i

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 163Killed:reclaimed his interest by recording astatement of his claim.Killed on Senate Second ReadingHB 8 Ryan Providing a mechanism for thetermination of ownership of severedmineral interests. Dormant severedmineral interests would have been definedas those that had been unused for twentyyears and were not recorded at the officeof the Clerk and Recorder in the county inwhich the severed mineral interest islocated. Upon abandonment of severedmineral interests, a surface owner couldhave claimed ownership by publishingnotice of intent to do so. Within 60 daysfollowing notice, however, the owner ofthe lapsed mineral interest could haveSB 360 Towe Requiring the filing and annualregistration of severed mineral interests.Surface owners would have been allowedto obtain dormant and unclaimed severedmineral interests through a claim ofadverse possession. This bill also wouldhave abolished the tax on the "right ofentry."Amending 15-6-131, 15-6-201, 15-8-111,70-19-411, and 70-28-109Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdoptedNoisePassed:Harper Authorizes fish and gamewardens to enforce Public Nuisance andDisorderly Conduct laws against operatorsof noisy motorboats and creates apresumption that the offenses are beingcommitted when a motorboat emits noisein excess of 86 decibels.Amending 87-1-506Third Reading Votes: House 85-12; Senate46-4Pest and Weed ControlToxicantsPassed:HB 802 D.Brown Generally revises the lawsrelating to the regulation of the sale anduse of pesticides. The Department ofAgriculture is authorized to imposeconditions on the renewal of dealer,applicator, and operator licenses andpermits and to impose civil penalties andestablish fees for training courses. Annual

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 164pesticide registration fees were increasedfrom $15 to $50, dealer license fees wereincreased from $15 to $35, and a farmapplicator fee was established at $15. Civilpenalties for violation of pesticide lawswere also increased.Amending 80-8-105, 80-8-109, 80-8-201,80-8-203, 80-8-204, 80-8-207, 80-8-209, 80-8-213,and 80-8-306Third Reading Votes: House47-1-11; SenateHB 159 Ellison Authorizes the governing bodyof a county to establish a program for themanagement and suppression of vertebratepests that may include the creationof control districts and rodent controlboards and the imposition of a tax not toexceed 2 mills on the taxable valuation ofall agricultural and timber lands and theirimprovements. Coordination between theDepartment of Agriculture and CountyRodent Control Districts provided for.Amending 7-22-2207, 7-22-2215, and 7-22-2216Third Reading Votes: House 95-0; Senate 49-0KilJed:SB 238 Ochsner Generally revising the lawsrelating to the regulation of sale and useof pesticides. The Department ofAgriculture would have been authorizedto do many of the things authorized underHB 802, but fees and penalty chargeswould have been somewhat different.Amending 80-8-105, 80-8-109, 80-8-201,80-8-203, 80-8-204, 80-8-207, 80-8-209, 80-8-213,and 80-8-306KiUed:HJR 24 R. Jensen Urging the DFWP toeffectively control noxious weeds on stateownedland surrounding NinepipeReservoir in Lake County.Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 161 Ernst Appropriating money to theDepartment of Agriculture for the positionof State Weed Control Coordinator.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeOtherPassed:HB85 Bertelsen Transfers the rodent controlfunctions of the Department of Livestockto the Department of Agriculture andexpands the program to include additionalvertebrate pests and depredatory andnuisance birds when they are injurious toagriculture and other industries.Amending 81-1-401 and 81-1-403Third Reading Votes: House 96-0; Senate 49-0SB 233 Marbut Allowing local governments touse up to 25% of all cash donationsreceived in Heu of dedicating park landfor noxious weed control and requiringlocal governments to establish weedcontrol programs before gifts of land maybe accepted for park and playgroundpurposes.Amending 7-22-2142, 7-22-4101, and 76-3-606Died in Senate Agriculture Committee159 Marbut Allocating one-tenth of thecoal severance tax revenue earmarked forcounty land planning to county noxiousweed accounts, to have been distributedbased on land area and population.Amending 7-6-2218, 7-22-2142, and 15-35-108Adverse Senate Taxation Committee ReportAdopted

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 165Public and Occupational HealthPassed:HB 862 Shontz Amends existing law such thatlicensing and registration of radioactiveKilled:materials and devices by the DHES isauthorized but not required.Amending 75-3-202Third Reading Votes: House 99-0; Senate 45-1HB 850 Driscoll Requiring employers todisclose to employees and affectedcitizens, the identity and health hazardsof certain substances found in theworkplace and make informationconcerning those substances available toemergency personnel. Local firedepartments would have been provided alist of the hazardous and toxic materialsin the workplace and neighboring citizenscould have requested this information ifthey resided within sight, smell or soundof the workplace. Protections would havebeen provided for trade secrets.Amending 50-70-109 and 50-70-118Died in Senate Labor CommitteeWaste ControlHazardous WastePassed:SB 56 Hager Authorizes the DHES to adoptrules setting fees to be paid by hazardouswaste generators to offset theadministrative costs of registration.Amending 75-10-405Third Reading Votes: Senate 46-1; House 82-4HB 200 Ream Designates the DHES as the leadagency responsible for implementing theFederal Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and LiabilityAct of 1980 to rectify the adverse effectsthat have resulted from the release ofhazardous substances into theenvironment. Appropriated from the RITinterest account is $225,000 as a 10%match for Superfund money, with 6% ofthe interest income from the RIT interestaccount to be allocated annually for thispurpose beginning in Fiscal Year 1986.Amending 15-38-202 and 75-10-523Third Reading Votes: House 90-2; Senate 42-0HB 203 Veleber Adopts the NorthwestInterstate Compact on Low-LevelRadioactive Waste Management. Thiscompact establishes regulatory practices(primarily on-site inspections) to ensurethat low-level waste shipments conform tothe packaging and transportationrequirements of the state where thewastes are being shipped. By joining thiscompact, Montana will be permitted tosend its low-level radioactive waste toWashington, the designated repositorystate among the compact states.Third Reading Votes: House 90-2; Senate 42-0

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 166Junk VehiclesPassed:Solid WasteSee Also HB)6 Yardley Removes motor vehiclegraveyards from one of two existinglicensing requirements and clarifiesagency authority for establishing rules forthe screening of motor vehicle wreckingfacilities. Additionally, any futurerelocation of any sanitary landfill orgarbage dump by the DOH will be subjectto the requirements of the Solid WasteManagement Act.Amending 75-15-203, 75-15-214, 75-15-222, and75-15-223; Repealing 75-15-212 and 75-15-213Third Reading Votes: House 80-20; Senate48-2HB 98 Yardley Requires that motor vehiclewrecking facilities and graveyards thathave operated since July 1, 1973 without alicense must be shielded from public viewin order to receive a new license upondifferent ownership. Previously, facilitiesthat were in operation 18 monthspreceding a new application for the samesite, with or without a license, wereexempt from the shielding requirement.Also, wrecking facilities established atnew locations may be required to put up afence higher than 12 feet.Amending 75-10-501, 75-10-503, and 75-10-504Third Reading Votes: House 99-0; Senate 49-0Passed:HB 728 Shontz Authorizes counties to exerciselitter and dog controls by ordinance andKilled:establishes a maximum penalty forviolation of such ordinances.Amending 7-23-104 and 7-23-2108Third Reading Votes: House 82-3; Senate35-14SB 29 Dover Abolishing the Class D motorcarrier classification, thereby removingthe PSC's authority over thetransportation of solid waste material.Amending 69-12-101, 69-12-102, 69-12-205,69-12-301, 69-12-321, 69-12-407, and 69-12-611;Repealing 69-12-314Died in Senate State AdministrationCommitteeSB 182 Hammond Establishing requirementsfor the operation of Class II solid wastedisposal sites for serving third class citiesand rural areas. This bill would haveshifted greater regulatory authority tolocal authorities over these smaller wastedisposal sites.Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeKilled:OtherSB 55 Hager Providing that the shieldingrequirements for new motor vehiclewrecking facilities do not apply to siteslicensed within the 18 months precedingapplication for a hcense. Previously, alloperating facilities, whether licensed ornot, were eligible for an exemption.Amending 75-10-504Died in Senate Highways CommitteePassed:HalliganGenerally revises the lawsrelating to licensure of cesspool, septictank, and privy cleaning businesses. Theauthorized to adopt rulesDHES isstipulating minimum requirements fortemporary and permanent sites fordisposal of septage. License fees, theirdisbursement, the contents of licenseapplication forms, and the inspection

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 167responsibilities of county sanitarians aremade explicit in this act.Amending 37-41-101, 37-41-103, 37-41-201,37-41-202, 37-41-211, and 37-41-212; Repealing37-41-102, 37-41-203, and 37-41-204Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-3; House56-42Killed:SB 357 lacobson Establishing a litter clean-upprogram along rivers. The DFWP wouldhave administered this program, whichwould have been funded out of licensefees imposed on the users of Montanarivers for boating recreation.Died in Senate Fish and Game CommitteeWaterApportionment/AdjudicationPassed:SB 99 Hager Authorizes the assignment andtransfer of judges, water masters, andother court personnel between waterdivisions by the chief water judge asneeded to facilitate the adjudication ofwater rights.Amending 3-7-223. 3-7-301, and 19-5-103Third Reading Votes: Senate 45-0; House 87-0SB 203 Towe Places judges and justices whoretire voluntarily after eight years ofservice subject to call by the SupremeCourt to assist the Supreme Court, andDistrict Court, or any Water Court in theadjudication of water rights.Amending 19-5-103Third Reading Votes: Senate 42-4; House 88-5SB 279 Ochsner Clarifies that the summaryreport of a water commissioner's dailydistribution of water may be filed eithermonthly or seasonally, at the discretion ofthe district judge, and that those reportsmust include daily costs associated withthat distribution above and beyond thewater commissioner's salary.Amending 85-5-107Third Reading Votes: Senate 45-0; House 92-0HB 324 Veleber Provides that water users withpermits and certificates issued by theDNRC must pay a proportionate share offees and compensation to watercommissioners, and that this cost is not tobe borne solely by parties to a decree.Amending 85-5-101 and 85-5-201Third Reading Votes: House 95-3; Senate 48-0SB 370 Etchart Generally revises laws relatingto the appropriation of surface andgroundwater. The DNRC is given the

EQC Eighth Annua) Report - Page 168authority to adopt rules necessary toreject, modify, or condition water usepermit applications in highly appropriatedbasins or sub-basins, upon petition by25% or ten of the water users in the basin.The department is also authorized tocollect fees commensurate with itsadministrative costs.changed from informing every personwho had filed a claim to each person whowas named in the decree or was unnamedbut requested notice.Amending 85-2-231Died in Senate Judiciary CommitteeAmending 85-2-112, 85-2-113, 85-2-123,85-2-124, 85-2-236, 85-2-302, 85-2-303, 85-2-306through 85-2-308, 85-2-311, 85-2-312, 85-2-314,85-2-315, 85-2-402, and 85-2-403Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House 95-0101 Boylan Provides for central and localrecording of water rights transfers.Record keeping is made the primaryresponsibility of county clerks andrecorders, who will be required to sendcopies of transfer notices to the DNRCand the Chief Water Judge. Evidence ofthe transfer of real property must nowstate whether a transfer of water rights isincluded. The act also provides that atransfer of water rights without DNRCapproval is not void, but rather the rightmay not be used until DNRC approval isgranted.Amending 85-2-403Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-3; House 98-0SB 37 Hager Making explicit that theMontana Water Courts have jurisdictionover water rights that arose both beforeand after 1973 and providing that judicialreview of administrative proceedings ofwater divisions be conducted by the waterjudge of that division.Amending 3-7-101, 3-7-224, 3-7-501, 3-7-502,and 85-2-121Killed on House Second ReadingSB 41 Hager Requiring the DNRC to compilequarterly and annual summary reports ofCertificates of Water Rights issued, whichwere to contain the names and addressesof new certificate holders and theamounts and uses of water by waterdivision.Amending 85-2-236Died in House Natural Resources CommitteeKilled:SB 23 Hager Streamlining the hearingprocedure for objections to preliminarydecrees once issued, and providing that awater judge would not have been requiredto hold a hearing on the water master'sreport.Amending 85-2-233Died in House Judiciary CommitteeSB 30 Hager Permitting the issuance of apreliminary decree prior to July 1, 1985where there is no potential for compactsconcerning reserved Indian or federalwater rights. The Water Court's duty ofnotification concerning the availability ofa preliminary decree would have beenSB 51 McCallum Requiring that the state orany political subdivision thereof and theUnited States or any political subdivisionthereof must apply for a reservation ofwater in the Missouri River basin by nolater than July 1, 1985. The Board ofNatural Resources would have beenrequired to make a final determination onthese reservation applications by July 1,1987.Died in Senate Agriculture CommitteeSB 90 Boylan Granting authority to watercourts to assess fees, subject to theapproval of the Montana Supreme Court,to cover the cost of the generaladjudication of water rights.Amending 85-2-241Adverse Senate Judiciary Committee ReportAdopted

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 169HB 711 Harrington Authorizing the DNRC toassess and collect fees from waterclaimants to pay for the expense of wateradjudication. Fees would have been basedon the actual costs of adjudication in aparticular hydrological basin.Amending 85-2-241Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 926 Thoft Reestablishing the WaterResources Oversight Committee to makerecommendations and oversee thedevelopment of the state's water resourcesand the implementation of the waterrights adjudication program.Died in Senate Rules CommitteeDevelopmentSee Also HB 926Passed:SB 146 D. Manning Requires that therepayment of loans made from theproceeds of water development bonds, aswell as charges and fees collected by theDNRC for the servicing of those loans, bedeposited in the water developmentearmarked account. This money is to beused for the administration of the waterdevelopment program and the servicing ofloans. Also, the maximum allowableamount of a water development loan isincreased from $100,000 to $200,000.Amending 17-5-704, 85-1-604, 85-1-605,85-1-613, 85-1-616, and 85-1-617HB 885 Jacobsen Approves the sale of CoalSeverance Tax Bonds to finance threestate hydroelectric projects, therehabilitation and repair of three statedams, and loans to local governments for19 water development projects. The totalstate debt for these projects will be $62.94million. This act also provides for theprivate sale of municipal revenue bondsto the state.Third Reading Votes: House 93-5; Senate 50-0HB 897 Neuman Appropriates all availablemoney to the DNRC for grants and loansunder the Water Development Programand for grants under the RenewableResources Development Program.Individual projects are funded accordingto priority, subject to the availability offunds.Third Reading Votes: House 86-12; Senate49-1HB 914 Asay Provides for analysis of thepotential for a joint water developmentproject between Montana and Wyomingon the Clark Fork of the YellowstoneRiver. The DNRC is required to conductan investigation to determine each state'sallocable share of the Clark Fork underKilled:the Yellowstone Compact, and alegislative committee is created toconduct discussions with Wyomingofficials regarding the feasibility of waterprojects to satisfy both states' needs.Third Reading Votes: House 95-2; Senate 48-0Third Reading Votes: Senate 50-0; House 96-0 SB 362 Etchart Providing authority to theDNRC for regulating the construction ofdams and reservoirs. The departmentwould also have been authorized toinspect dams and assess penalties forpermit violations. A Technical ReviewCommittee would have been created tomake recommendations on the technicalmerits of dam projects.SB 321 Turnage Provides that state waterprojects found suitable for small-scalehydropower development do not have tobe leased if to do so would causeforfeiture of a federal license, permit orexemption. Instead, the state may nowdevelop and sell the electricity itself.Amending 85-1-502Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-1; House 96-3Amending 85-15-101 and 85-15-104Killed on Senate Second Reading

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 170HB 610 Compton Appropriating $48,000 fromthe RIT interest account for a grant to theMilk River Water Users' Association forthe purpose of constructing a fish ladderon the St. Mary's diversion dam.Died in House Appropriations CommitteeHB 927 Bardanouve Allowing state and localgovernment entities to apply for grantsand loans from the Water DevelopmentProgram. This bill also would have givena preference to loan applicants that couldpay the full market interest rate.Amending 85-1-608 through 85-1-610 and85-1-612Died in Senate Rules CommitteeMarketingPassed:HB 908 Harper Repeals the ban on the exportof water for out-of-state use andauthorizes the DNRC to acquire water, forindustrial and other uses, from anyfederal reservoir. Previously, the statecould only acquire water from Fort PeckReservoir, and then only for industrialpurposes. The department is alsoprohibited from issuing a permit for anannual appropriation of water in excessof 10,000 acre-feet per year or 15 cubicfeet per second, unless certain strict"public interest" criteria are met and thelegislature affirms the department'sfindings. Finally, a select committee onwater marketing is created and assignedthe task of studying the laws related to theacquisition, transportation, and use of thestate's water. This act terminates June 30,1985, thus all of its provisions are onlytemporary.Amending 85-1-205 and 85-2-311; Repealing85-1-121Third Reading Votes: House>48-217; SenateKilled:HB 893 Neuman Authorizing the DNRC toacquire rights to a maximum of 50,000acre-feet of stored water per year andestablishing a mechanism by which thedepartment could market it for industrialpurposes (including coal slurry).Specifically, this bill would have: repealedthe ban on the export of Montana water;amended an existing statutory definitionthat established coal slurry as a nonbeneficialuse of water by allowing thelegislature to make exceptions; authorizedthe department to acquire water from anyfederal reservoir for any use (existing lawallows for acquisition only from Fort PeckReservoir and only for industrialpurposes); authorized the department toenter into contracts for the sale ortransfer of water to persons for coalslurry purposes contingent upon approvalby the legislature for review; prohibitedthe marketing of water for coal slurrypurposes until an environmental impactstatement had been completed andsubmitted to the legislature for review;limited the term of contracts that providefor the sale or transfer of water by thedepartment to a maximum of 40 years;amended the MFSA to include pipelinescapable of transporting coal slurry; andcreated a Water Resources OversightCommittee to study issues related to waterdevelopment in the state.Amending 75-20-104, 75-20-218, 85-1-101,85-1-102, 85-1-202, 85-1-204, 85-1-205, 85-2-104.and 85-2-311; Repealing 85-1-121Killed on House Second ReadingHB 894 Marks Authorizing the DNRC toacquire rights to a maximum of 50,000acre-feet per year of impounded water forthe purpose of marketing water forindustrial purposes. Specifically, this billwould have: repealed an existing statutorydefinition that established coal slurry as anon-beneficial use; amended the ban onthe export of Montana water to allowwater export subject to specific findingsby the DNRC; authorized the DNRC tocontract for the sale or transport of waterfor beneficial uses (including coal slurry)subject to approval by the Board ofNatural Resources and Conservation;prohibited the use of water for coal slurry

EQC Eighth AnnuaJ Report - Page 171purposes unless the water is classified as"low-quality" or unless it is shown thatthe use of "low-quality" water is noteconomically feasible; limited the terms ofcontracts that provide for the sale ortransfer of water rights by the DNRC to amaximum of forty years; amended theMFSA to include pipelines costing morethan $10 million and that are capable oftransporting coal slurry; and created aWater Resources Oversight Committeeand assigned it the task of studying watermarketing and water development inMontana.Amending 75-20-104, 75-20-216, 75-20-218,75-20-301, 75-20-303, 75-20-304, 75-20-1202,85-1-101, 85-1-102, 85-1-121, 85-1-202, 85-1-204,85-1-205, 85-1-604, 85-2-102, 85-2-241, and85-2-311; Repealing 85-2-104Died in House Natural Resources Committeedisciplinary, and examinationresponsibilities are to be assumed by theDHES.Amending 2-8-103, 2-15-2105, 37-42-102,37-42-201 through 37-42-203, 37-42-301,37-42-302, 37-42-304, 37-42-305, 37-42-307through 37-42-309, and 37-42-321Third Reading Votes: House 90-9; Senate 45-0HB 692 Bardanouve Appropriates $45,000 tothe Governor's Office for administrationand operation of the Flathead BasinCommission.Third Reading Votes: House 76-17; Senate48-0HB 819 Asay Appropriates $60,000 to theMontana Bureau of Mines and Geologyfrom the Renewable ResourcesDevelopment Account for monitoring andassessing groundwater impacts insensitive areas. The bureau is required todevelop a network of monitor wells inappropriate areas around the Berkeley Pitand the coal fields of southeasternMontana.Third Reading Votes: House 97-3; Senate 48-0QualityPassed:SB 161 Turnage Establishes a Flathead BasinCommission for the purpose ofmonitoring natural conditions in theFlathead River basin of Montana. Thecommission is charged with coordinatingresource management between federal,state, provincial, tribal, and localgovernments and encouraging economicdevelopment and use of the basin'sresources without compromising thequality of the basin's aquaticenvironment.Third Reading Votes: Senate 48-0; House 96-2Waldron Reestablishes the Board ofWater and Wastewater Operators as theWater and Wastewater Operators'Advisory Council but limiting itsfunctions as strictly advisory. Its formerlicensing, continuing education,Stream AccessSee Also SB 347Passed:HJR 36 Keyset Requests that an interimcommittee be assigned to identify therights of landowners adjacent to publiclands and waterways and the rights of thepublic to access and use of them. Theobjective of the study is to establish ameans of protecting and preserving therights of both groups.Third Reading Votes: House 93-0; Senate 44-4

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 172Killed:SB 348 Gait Changing the definition ofnavigable streams so that only streamsthat were navigable in fact when Montanabecame a state can be considerednavigable now. This bill would haveremoved the periodic use of a stream forfloating logs and recreational uses ascriteria for determining when a stream isnavigable. Also, this bill would haveclarified that this latter definition does notapply for purposes of determining title.Amending 85-1-112Died in Senate Judiciary CommitteeHB 799 Neuman Transferring title of the bedof navigable streams between the lowwatermarks from the state to adjoininglandowners in the manner prescribed fornon-navigable streams.Amending 70-1-201 and 70-1-202Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 801 Neuman Allowing an owner or lesseeof land adjoining a navigable stream tofence or build a bridge across the streamif warning signs are posted andmaintained along the upstream shore andattached to the fence or bridge.Died in House Fish and Game CommitteeHB 877 Ream Requiring that identificationdecals be displayed on craft floating onstreams, with the fees collected from thesale of such decals to be used for streammanagement activities by the DFWP.Killed on House Second ReadingHB 888 Marks Transferring title to the bed ofnavigable streams from the state toadjacent landowners. This bill also wouldhave granted the public the right to floatsmall craft on all state waters that arefloatable. Potential liability of landownersto recreationists would have been limitedand prescriptive easements would nothave been attainable through recreationalAmending 70-1-202, 70-16-201, 70-19-405, and85-1-112Died in Senate Agriculture CommitteeOtherPassed:HB 373 Marks Reestablishes the Board ofWater Well Contractors, grants the boarddiscretion in prescribing license fees forwater well contractors, and increases theamount of the surety bonds required ofwater well contractors from $1,000 to$4,000.Amending 2-8-103, 37-43-303, 37-43-305through 37-43-307, and 37-43-311Third Reading Votes: House 91-1; Senate 48-0SB 428 Etchart Authorizes the establishmentof county weather modificationKilled:authorities by petition of 51% of thequalified electors of a county. Countyauthorities may levy a tax not to exceedtwo mills for purposes of implementingweather modification programs.Third Reading Votes: Senate 47-0; House 92-4HB 806 Waldron Abolishing the Board ofWater Well Contractors and transferringits regulatory authority to the DNRC. Theboard would have been replaced by aWater Well Contractors Advisory Councilpossessing strictly advisory functions.This bill also would have allowed thedepartment to repair substandard work atthe contractor's expense and issuelicenses, with appropriate fees, for waterwell drillers. Surety bonds for water wellcontractors would have been increased.Amending 2-8-103, 37-43-102, 37-43-103,37-43-202, 37-43-302 through 37-43-307,37-43-311, and 37-43-312; Repealing 2-15-1862and 37-43-201Died in House Natural Resources Committee

SUMMARY OF NATURALRESOURCE LEGISLATIONEQC Eighth AnnuaJ Report - Page 173

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 174Bills and JointResolutions IntroducedTotalPassedNoisePest and Weed ControlToxicants 2 1Other 6 2Subtotal 8 3Public and Occupational Health 2 1Waste ControlHazardous 3 3Junk Vehicles 3 2Solid Waste 3 1Other 2 1Subtotal 11 7WaterApportionment/Adjudication 14 6Development 8 5Marketing 3 iQuality 4 4Stream Access 6 1Other 3 2Subtotal 38 19Grand Total 294 150

APPENDICES

Montana Environmental Policy ActEQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 177Part 1General Provisions75-1-101. Short title. This chapter may be cited as the "MontanaEnvironmental Policy Act".History: En. Sec. 1, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6501.Cross-ReferencesState policy of consistency and continuity inthe adoption and application of environmentalrules, 90-1-101.75-1-102. Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to declare a statepolicy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between manand his environment, to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damageto the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfareof man, to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and naturalresources important to the state, and to establish an environmental qualitycouncil.History: En. Sec. 2, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6502.75-1-103. Policy. (1) The legislature, recognizing the profound impactof man's activity on the interrelations of all components of the natural environment,particularly the profound influences of population growth, highdensityurbanization, industrial expansion, resource exploitation, and newand expanding technological advances, and recognizing further the criticalimportance of restoring and maintaining environmental quality to the overallwelfare and development of man, declares that it is the continuing policy ofthe state of Montana, in cooperation with the federal government and localgovernments and other concerned public and private organizations, to use allpracticable means and measures, including financial and technical assistance,in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to createand maintain conditions under which man and nature can coexist in productiveharmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements ofpresent and future generations of Montanans.(2) In order to carry out the policy set forth in this chapter, it is the continuingresponsibility of the state of Montana to use all practicable meansconsistent with other essential considerations of state policy to improve andcoordinate state plans, functions, programs, and resources to the end that thestate may:(a) fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environmentfor succeeding generations;(b) assure for all Montanans safe, healthful, productive, and aestheticallyand culturally pleasing surroundings;(c) attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment withoutdegradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintendedconsequences;

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 178(d) preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of ourunique heritage and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supportsdiversity and variety of individual choice;(e) achieve a balance between population 'and resource use which will permithigh standards of living and a wide sharing of life's amenities; and(f) enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximumattainable recycling of depletable resources.(3) The legislature recognizes that each person shall be entitled to ahealthful environment and that each person has a responsibility to contributeto the preservation and enhancement of the environment.History: Kn. Sec. 3. Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6503.Cross-References Comments of historic preservation officer,Right to clean and healthful environment, 22-3-433.Art. II, sec. 3, Mont. Const. Renewable resource development, Title 90,Duty to maintain a clean and healthful envi- ch. 2.ronment, Art. IX, sec. 1, Mont. Const.76-1-104. Specific statutory obligations unimpaired. Nothing in75-1-103 or 75-1-201 shall in any way affect the specific statutory obligationsof any agency of the state to:(1) comply with criteria or standards of environmental quality;(2) coordinate or consult with any other state or federal agency; or(3) act or refrain from acting contingent upon the recommendations orcertification of any other state or federal agency.History: En. Sec. 6, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6506.75-1-105. Policies and goals supplementary. The policies andgoals set forth in this chapter are supplementary to those set forth in existingauthorizations of all boards, commissions, and agencies of the state.History: En. Sec. 7, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6507.Part 2Environmental Impact Statements75-1-201. General directions — environmental impact statements.(1) The legislature authorizes and directs that, to the fullest extentpossible:(a) the policies, regulations, and laws of the state shall be interpreted andadministered in accordance with the policies set forth in this chapter;(b) all agencies of the state, except as provided in subsection (2), shall:(i) utilize a systematic, interdisciplinary approach which will insure theintegrated use of the natural and social sciences and the environmentaldesign arts in planning and in decisionmaking which may have an impact onman's environment;(ii) identify and develop methods and procedures which will insure thatpresently unquantified environmental amenities and values may be givenappropriate consideration in decisionmaking along with economic and technicalconsiderations;

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 179(iii) include in every recommendation or report on proposals for projects,programs, legislation, and other major actions of state government significantlyaffecting the quality of the human environment, a detailed statementon:(A) the environmental impact of the proposed action;(B) any adverse environmental effects which cannot be avoided shouldthe proposal be implemented;(C) alternatives to the proposed action;(D) the relationship between local short-term uses of man's environmentand the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity; and(E) any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources whichwould be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented;(iv) study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommendcourses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerningalternative uses of available resources;(v) recognize the national and long-range character of environmentalproblems and, where consistent with the policies of the state, lend appropriatesupport to initiatives, resolutions, and programs designed to maximizenational cooperation in anticipating and preventing a decline in the qualityof mankind's world environment;(vi) make available to counties, municipalities, institutions, and individualsadvice and information useful in restoring, maintaining, and enhancing thequality of the environment;(vii) initiate and utilize ecological information in the planning and developmentof resource-oriented projects; and(viii) assist the environmental quality council established by 5-16-101; and(c) prior to making any detailed statement as provided in subsection(l)(b)(iii), the responsible state official shall consult with and obtain thecomments of any state agency which has jurisdiction by law or special expertisewith respect to any environmental impact involved. Copies of such statementand the comments and views of the appropriate state, federal, and localagencies which are authorized to develop and enforce environmental standardsshall be made available to the governor, the environmental qualitycouncil, and the public and shall accompany the proposal through the existingagency review processes.(2) The department of public service regulation, in the exercise of its regulatoryauthority over rates and charges of railroads, motor carriers, and publicutilities, is exempt from the provisions of this chapter.History: En. Sec. 4, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947. 69-6504; amd. Sec. 1. Ch. 391, L. 1979.Cross-ReferencesStatement under lakeshore protection provi-Citizens' right to participate satisfied if envi- sions required, Tfi-T^l.l.ronmental impact statement filed, 2-3104. Impact statement for facility siting.Statement to contain information regarding 75-20-211.heriUge properties and paleontological remains, Energy emergency provisions - exclusion,22-3-433. 90-4-310.76-1-202. Agency rules to prescribe fees. Each agency of state governmentcharged with the responsibility of issuing a lease, permit, contract,license, or certificate under any provision of state law may adopt rules prescribingfees which shall be paid by a person, corporation, partnership, firm,association, or other private entity when an application for a lease, permit,

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 180contract, license, or certificate will require an agency to compile an environmentalimpact statement as prescribed by 75-1-201. An agency must determinewithin 30 days after a completed application is filed whether it will benecessary to compile an environmental impact statement and assess a fee asprescribed by this part. The fee assessed under this part shall be used onlyto gather data and information necessary to compile an environmentalimpact statement as defined in this chapter. No fee may be assessed if anagency intends only to file a negative declaration stating that the proposedproject will not have a significant impact on the human environment.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518(1).Cross-References Fees in connection with environmentalFees authorized for environmental review of impact statement required before issuing persubdivisionplats, 76-4-105. mits to appropriate water, 85-2-124.76-1-203. Fee schedule — maximums. (1) In prescribing fees to beassessed against applicants for a lease, permit, contract, license, or certificateas specified in 75-1-202, an agency may adopt a fee schedule which may beadjusted depending upon the size and complexity of the proposed project. Nofee may be assessed unless the application for a lease, permit, contract,license, or certificate will result in the agency incurring expenses in excess of$2,500 to compile an environmental impact statement.(2) The maximum fee that may be imposed by an agency shall not exceed2% of any estimated cost up to $1 million, plus 1% of any estimated costover $1 million and up to $20 million, plus V2 of 1% of any estimated costover $20 million and up to $100 million, plus Vi of 1% of any estimated costover $100 million and up to $300 million, plus '/s of 1% of any estimatedcost in excess of $300 million.(3) If an application consists of two or more facilities, the filing fee shallbe based on the total estimated cost of the combined facilities. The estimatedcost shall be determined by the agency and the applicant at the time theapplication is filed.(4) Each agency shall review and revise its rules imposing fees as authorizedby this part at least every 2 years. Furthermore, each agency shall providethe legislature with a complete report on the fees collected prior to thetime that a request for an appropriation is made to the legislature.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518(2), (7).75-1-204. Application of administrative procedure act. In adoptingrules prescribing fees as authorized by this part, an agency shall complywith the provisions of the Montana Administrative Procedure Act.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. 1. Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518(4).Cross-ReferencesMontana Administrative Procedure Act —adoption and publication of rules. Title 2, ch. 4,part 3.75-1-205. Use of fees. All fees collected under this part shall bedeposited in the state special revenue fund as provided in 17-2-102. All feespaid pursuant to this part shall be used as herein provided. Upon completion

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 181of the necessary work, each agency will make an accounting to the applicantof the funds expended and refund all unexpended funds without interest.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. I. Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518(5); amd. Sec. 1. ( h. 277.L. 1983.Compiler's Comments1983 Amendment: Substituted reference tostate special revenue fund for reference to earmarkedrevenue fund.76-1-206. Multiple applications or combined facility. In caseswhere a combined facility proposed by an applicant requires action by morethan one agency or multiple applications for the same facility, the governorshall designate a lead agency to collect one fee pursuant to this part, to coordinatethe preparation of information required for all environmental impactstatements which may be required, and to allocate and disburse the necessaryfunds to the other agencies which require funds for the completion ofthe necessary work.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518(6).75-1-207. Major facility siting applications excepted. No fee asprescribed by this part may be assessed against any person, corporation,partnership, firm, association, or other private entity filing an application forunder the provisions of the Montana Major Facility Siting Act,a certificatechapter 20 of this title.History: En. 69-6518 by Sec. 1, Ch. 329, L. 1975; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6518

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 18275-1-312. Hearings — council subpoena power — contempt proceedings.In the discharge of its duties the council shall have authority tohold hearings, administer oaths, issue subpoenas, compel the attendance ofwitnesses and the production of any papers, books, accounts, documents, andtestimony, and to cause depositions of witnesses to be taken in the mannerprescribed by law for taking depositions in civil actions in the district court.In case of disobedience on the part of any person to comply with any subpoenaissued on behalf of the council or any committee thereof or of therefusal of any witness to testify on any matters regarding which he may belawfully interrogated, it shall be the duty of the district court of any countyor the judge thereof, on application of the council, to compel obedience byproceedings for contempt as in the case of disobedience of the requirementsof a subpoena issued from such court on a refusal to testify therein.History: En. Sec. 16, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6516.Cross-ReferencesSubpoena — disobedience, 26-2-104 throughWarrant of attachment or commitment for 26-2-107.contempt, 3-1-513. Criminal contempt, 45-7.309.Depositions upon oral examinations. Rules30(a) through 30(g), 31(a) through 31(c),M.R.Civ.P. (see Title 25, ch. 20).75-1-313. Consultation with other groups — utilization of services.In exercising its powers, functions, and duties under this chapter, thecouncil shall:(1) consult with such representatives of science, industry, agriculture,labor, conservation organizations, educational institutions, local governments,and other groups as it deems advisable; and(2) utilize, to the fullest extent possible, the services, facilities, and information(including statistical information) of public and private agencies andorganizations and individuals in order that duplication of effort and expensemay be avoided, thus assuring that the council's activities will not unnecessarilyoverlap or conflict with similar activities authorized by law and performedby established agencies.History: En. Sec. 17, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6517.75-1-314 through 76-1-320 reserved.75-1-321. Appointment and qualifications of executive director.The council shall appoint the executive director and set his salary. The executivedirector shall hold a degree from an accredited college or universitywith a major in one of the several environmental sciences and shall have atleast 3 years of responsible experience in the field of environmental management.He shall be a person who, as a result of his training, experience, andattainments, is exceptionally well qualified to analyze and interpret environmentaltrends and information of all kinds; to appraise programs and activitiesof the state government in the light of the policy set forth in 75-1-103;to be conscious of and responsive to the scientific, economic, social, aesthetic,and cultural needs and interests of the state; and to formulate and recommendstate policies to promote the improvement of the quality of the environment.History: En. Sec. 11, Ch. 238. L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6511.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 18375-1-322. Term and removal of executive director. The executivedirector is solely responsible to the council. He shall hold office for a termof 2 years beginning with July 1 of each odd-numbered year. The councilmay remove him for misfeasance, malfeasance, or nonfeasance in office atany time after notice and hearing.History: En. Sec. 13, C h. 2.18. I.. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-651.1.Cross-ReferencesNotice of removal to officer authorized toreplace, 2-16-503.Offic-ial misconduct, 4r)-7-4()l.76-1-323. Appointment of employees. The executive director, subjectto the approval of the council, may appoint whatever employees are necessaryto carry out the provisions of this chapter, within the limitations oflegislative appropriations.History: En. Sec. 12, Ch. 238, L. 1971; R.C.M. 1947, 69-6512.76-1-324. Duties of executive director and staff. It shall be theduty and function of the executive director and his staff to:(1) gather timely and authoritative information concerning the conditionsand trends in the quality of the environment, both current and prospective,analyze and interpret such information for the purpose of determiningwhether such conditions and trends are interfering or are likely to interferewith the achievement of the policy set forth in 75-1-103, and compile andsubmit to the governor and the legislature studies relating to such conditionsand trends;(2) review and appraise the various programs and activities of the stateagencies, in the light of the policy set forth in 75-1-103, for the purpose ofdetermining the extent to which such programs and activities are contributingto the achievement of such policy and make recommendations to the governorand the legislature with respect thereto;(3) develop and recommend to the governor and the legislature state policiesto foster and promote the improvement of environmental quality to meetthe conservation, social, economic, health, and other requirements and goalsof the state;(4) conduct investigations, studies, surveys, research, and analyses relatingto ecological systems and environmental quality;(5) document and define changes in the natural environment, includingthe plant and animal systems, and accumulate necessary data and otherinformation for a continuing analysis of these changes or trends and an interpretationof their underlying causes;(6) make and furnish such studies, reports thereon, and recommendationswith respect to matters of policy and legislation as the legislature requests;(7) analyze legislative proposals in clearly environmental areas and inother fields where legislation might have environmental consequences andassist in preparation of reports for use by legislative committees, administrativeagencies, and the public;(8) consult with and assist legislators who are preparing environmentallegislation to clarify any deficiencies or potential conflicts with an overallecologic plan;(9) review and evaluate operating programs in the environmental field inthe several agencies to identify actual or potential conflicts, both among such

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 184activities and with a general ecologic perspective, and suggest legislation toremedy such situations;(10) annually, beginning July 1, 1972, transmit to the governor and thelegislature and make available to the general public an environmental qualityreport concerning the state of the environment, which shall contain:(a) the status and condition of the major natural, manmade, or alteredenvironmental classes of the state, including but not limited to the air, theaquatic (including surface water and groundwater) and the terrestrial environments,including but not limited to the forest, dryland, wetland, range,urban, suburban, and rural environments;(b) the adequacy of available natural resources for fulfilling human andeconomic requirements of the state in the light of expected populationpressures;(c) current and foreseeable trends in the quality, management, and utilizationof such environments and the effects of those trends on the social,economic, and other requirements of the state in the light of expected populationpressures;(d) a review of the programs and activities (including regulatory activities)of the state and local governments and nongovernmental entities orindividuals, with particular reference to their effect on the environment andon the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources; and(e) a program for remedying the deficiencies of existing programs andactivities, together with recommendations for legislation.History: Kn. Sec. 14, f h. 2.^8, L. 1971; R.( M. 1947, 69-6514.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 185Model Agency Rules to Implement MEPAPolicy Statement Concerning MEPA Rules.The purpose of these rules is to implement Chapter 1,Title 75, MCA, the Montana Environmental Policy Act(MEPA), through the establishment of administrativeprocedures. In order to fulfill the stated policy of thatact, an agency shall conform to the following rules priorto reaching a final decision on actions covered byMEPA. It must be noted that the act requires that stateagencies comply with its terms "to the fullest extentpossible."Definition of MEPA Terms, (l) "Cumulative impact"means the incremental cumulation of impacts onthe human environment of the proposed action whenconsidered in conjunction with other past and presentactions related to the proposed action by location orgeneric type. Related future actions must also be consideredwhen these actions are under concurrent considerationby any state agency through pre-impact statementstudies, separate impact statement evaluation, orpermit processing procedures.(2) "Emergency actions" include, but are not limitedto:(a) projects undertaken, carried out, or approved bythe department to repair or restore property or facilitiesdamaged or destroyed as a result of a disaster when adisaster has been declared by the Governor or other appropriategovernment entity;(b) emergency repairs to public service facilitiesnecessary to maintain service; or(c) projects, whether public or private, undertaken toprevent or mitigate immediate threats to public health,safety, welfare, or the environment.(3) "Environmental impact statement" (EIS) meansthe detailed written statement required by section75-1-201, which may take several forms:(a) "Draft environmental impact statement" means adetailed written statement prepared to the fullest extentpossible in accordance with section 75-l-201(l){b)(iii),and Rule V.(b) "Final environmental impact statement" means awritten statement prepared to the fullest extent possiblein accordance with section 75-1-201 and these rules andwhich responds to substantive comments received onthe draft environmental impact statement.(c) "Joint environmental impact statement" means anEIS prepared jointly by more than one agency, eitherstate or federal, when the agencies are involved in thesame or closely related proposed action.(4) "Environmental quality council" (EQC) means thecouncil established pursuant to Title 75, Chapter 1.(7) "Preliminary environmental review" (PER) meansa brief written statement on a proposed action to determinewhether the action will significantly affect thequality of the human environment and therefore requiresa draft environmental impact statement.(8) "Programmatic review" is a general analysis ofrelated agency-initiated actions, programs or policies,or the continuance of a broad policy or program whichmay involve a series of future actions,(9) "Secondary impact" means the effects an actionmay have of stimulating, inducing, or inhibiting impacts.(10) "State agency," "agency" or "department" meansan office, commission, committee, board, department,council, division, bureau, or section of the executivebranch of state government.Determination of Necessity for EnvironmentalImpact Statement, (l) A department shall preparea PER to determine whether an EIS is necessary in thefollowing situations:(a) when the proposed action is one that normally requiresan EIS, but, because of special circumstances,the action may not be a major one significantly affectingthe quality of the human environment;(b) when the proposed action is one that normallydoes not require an EIS, but, because of special circumstances,the action may be a major one significantly affectingthe quality of the human environment;(c) the action is not one required to be listed under (6)below and it is not clear without preparation of a PERwhether the proposed action is a major one significantlyaffecting the quality of the human environment.(2) The department shall prepare an EIS in the followingsituations:(a) when the proposed action is one that normally requiresan EIS under (6) of this rule and there are notspecial circumstances;(b) when a PER indicates that an EIS is necessary; or(c) when the proposed action is so clearly a major actionof state government significantly affecting thequality of the human environment that no PER isnecessary.(3) The following are categories of actions which normallyrequire the preparation of an EIS:(a) actions which may significantly affect environmentalattributes recognized as being endangered,fragile, or in severely short supply;(b) actions which may be either significantly growth(5) "Human environment" includes, but is not limited inducing or growth inhibiting;to biological, physical, social, economic, cultural, and (c) actions which may substantially alter environmentalconditions in terms of quality or availability; oraesthetic factors that interrelate to form the environment.(6) "Lead agency" means the state agency that hasprimary authority for committing the government to a (4) An EIS is not required for the following actions:course of action having significant environmental impactor the agency designated by the governor to super-functions of the department, including but not limited(a) administrative actions: routine, clerical or similarvise the preparation of a joint environmental impact to administrative procurements, contracts for consultingservices, and personnel actions;statement.(d) actions which will result in substantial cumulativeimpacts.

EQC Eighth Annua] Report - Page(b) existing facilities: minor repairs, operations ormaintenance of existing equipment or facilities;(c) investigation and enforcement: data collection, inspectionof facilities, or enforcement of environmentalstandards;(d) non-discretionary actions: actions in which theagency exercises no discretion, but rather acts upon agiven state of facts in a prescribed manner.(5) If the PER shows a significant impact on the qualityof the human environment, an EIS shall be preparedon that action.(6) The department shall adopt a list of those activitiesor functions that normally require an EIS or do not requireeither an EIS or a PER in accordance with rulemakingprocedures provided by the Montana AdministrativeProcedure Act (Chapter 4, Title 2).Preparation of Preliminary EnvironmentalReview, (l) A PER shall include:(a) an adequate description of the proposed action, includingmaps and graphs, if appropriate;(b) an evaluation of the immediate, cumulative, andcover, quantity and quality; aesthetics; air quality;unique, endangered, fragile, or limited environmentalresources; historical and archaeological sites; anddemands on environmental resources of land, water, airand energy;(c) an evaluation of the immediate, cumulative, andsecondary impacts on human population in the area tobe affected by the proposed action, through the use of achecklist and brief narrative, including where appropriate:social structures and mores, cultural uniquenessand diversity, access to and quality of recreationaland wilderness activities, local and state tax base andtax revenues, agricultural or industrial production,human health, quantity and distribution of communityand personal income, transportation networks and trafficflows, quantity and distribution of employment,distribution and density of population and housing,demands for government services, industrial and commercialactivity, and locally adopted environmentalplans and goals;(d) a listing of other agencies or groups that have beencontacted or which may have overlapping jurisdiction;(e) the names of those individuals or groups contributingto and responsible for compiling the PER.(2) A PER is a public document and may be inspectedupon request by any person. Any person may obtain acopy of a PER by making a request to the department.The department may give public notice of the availabilityof the PER and may distribute it. The departmentshall submit a copy of each completed PER to the EQC.(2) a description of the current environmental conditionsin the area significantly affected by the proposedaction, including maps and charts, where appropriate;(3) a description of the impacts on the quality of thehuman environment by the proposed action including:(a) the factors listed in (l)(a) and (b), of the precedingrule where appropriate;(b) primary, secondary, and cumulative impacts;(c) potential growth-inducing or growth-inhibiting impacts;(d) irreversible and irretrievable commitments of environmentalresources, including land, air, water andenergy;(e) economic and environmental benefits and costs ofthe proposed action (if a benefit-cost analysis is consideredfor the proposed action, it shall be incorporatedby reference or appended to the statement to aid inevaluating the environmental consequences);(f) the relationship between local short-term uses ofman's environment and the effects on maintenance andenhancement of the long-term productivity of the environment;(g) additional or secondary impacts at the local or areasecondary impacts on the physical environment, level, if any;through the use of checklist and a brief narrative,(4) a description of reasonable alternative actions thatincludingwhere appropriate: terrestrial and aquatic lifeand habitats; water quality, quantity, and distribution;geology; soil quality, stability, and moisture; vegetationcould be taken by the department;(5) the proposed agency decision on the proposed action,if appropriate;(6) source material used in the preparation of the draftEIS and;(7) the names of those individuals or groups responsiblefor compiling the draft EIS and the names of thoseindividuals or groups contributing to the EIS; and(8) a summary of the EIS.Adoption of Draft Environmental ImpactStatement as Final, (l) Depending upon the natureand number of substantive comments received inresponse to the draft environmental impact statement,the draft statement may suffice. In this case, a departmentshall submit one copy of all comments or a summaryof a representative sample of comments receivedin response to the draft statement to the governor, EQC,the applicant whose project is being evaluated in theEIS, and all commentators. The department shall determinewhether a final EIS is necessary within 30 days ofthe close of the comment period on the draft EIS.(2) If the department determines that a final EIS is notnecessary, it may make a final decision on the proposedaction no sooner than 15 days after complying withsubsection (1) above. The department shall also includewith the comments notice of its decision not to preparea final EIS and a statement describing its proposedcourse of action. The applicant whose project is beingevaluated in the EIS may request an extension of this15-day period in order to respond to the written commentsthat have been received.Preparation and Contents of Draft EnvironmentalStatements. If required by these rules, adepartment shall prepare a draft environmental impactstatement which shall include:(1) a description of the nature and objectives of theproposed action;Preparation and Contents of Final EnvironmentalImpact Statements. A final environmentalimpact statement shall include:(1) a summary of major conclusions and supportinginformation from the draft EIS and the responses tosubstantive comments received on the draft EIS, stating

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 187specifically where such conclusions and informationwere changed from those which appeared in the draft;(2) a list of all sources of written and oral commentson the draft EIS, including those obtained at publichearings, and, unless impractical, the text of commentsreceived by the department (in all cases, a representativesample of comments shall be included);(3) the department's responses to substantive comments(these responses shall include an evaluation ofthe comments received and a disposition of the issuesinvolved);(4) data, information, and explanations obtainedsubsequent to circulation of the draft;(5) the department's recommendation for the finalagency decision on the proposed action, where appropriate.Time Limits and Distribution of EnvironmentalImpact Statements, (l) Following preparation ofa draft EIC, a department shall distribute copies to theGovernor, EQC, appropriate state and federal agencies,the applicant, and persons who have requested copies.(2) The listed transmittal date to the Governor and theEQC shall not be earlier than the date that the draft EISis mailed to other agencies, organizations, and individuals.The department shall allow 30 days for reply;provided that the department may extend this period upto an additional 30 days upon application of any personfor good cause. No extension which is otherwise prohibitedby law may be granted.(3) After the period for comment on the draft EIS hasexpired, a copy of all written comments received by thedepartment shall be sent to the applicant whose projectis being evaluated in the EIS. The applicant shall be advisedthat he has a reasonable time to respond in writingto the comments received by the department on thedraft EIS and that the applicant's written response mustbe received before a final EIS can be prepared and circulated.The applicant may waive his right to respond tothe comments on the draft EIS.(4) No action which requires the preparation of a finalEIS shall be taken sooner than 45 days after the transmittaldate of the draft EIS to the governor and EQC.(5) Except as provided by rule when a final EIS is notprepared, a final decision may not be made on the proposedaction being evaluated in the EIS until 15 dayshave expired from the date of transmittal of the final EISto the governor and EQC. The listed transmittal date tothe governor and EQC shall not be earlier than the datethat the final EIS is mailed to other agencies, organizations,and individuals.(6) Following preparation of a final EIS, the departmentshall distribute copies to the governor, EQC, appropriatestate and federal agencies, the applicant, personswho submitted comments on or received a copy ofthe EIS. and other members of the public upon request.(7) All written comments received on an EIS, includingwritten responses received from the applicant,shall be made available to the public upon request.(8) Until an agency reaches its final decision on theproposed action, no action concerning the proposalshall be taken which would:(a) have an adverse environmental impact; or(b) limit the choice of reasonable alternatives, includingthe no-action alternative.Supplements to Environmental Impact Statements.(l)The department shall prepare supplementsto either draft or final environmental impact statementsif:(a) the department or the applicant makes substantialchanges in the proposed action; or(b) there are significant new circumstances, discoveredprior to final agency decision, including informationbearing on the proposed action or its impactswhich change the basis for decision.(2) The same time periods applicable to draft and finalEISs specified in these rules apply to the circulation andreview of supplements.Incorporation by Reference and Adoption, (i)A department shall adopt and incorporate by referenceas part of a draft EIS all or any part of the information,conclusions, comments, and responses to commentscontained in an existing EIS which has been previouslyor is being contemporaneously prepared pursuant to theMontana Environmental Policy Act or the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act if:(a) the department determines that the existing EIScovers an action paralleling or closely related to the actionproposed by the department or the applicant;(b) the department determines, on the basis of its ownindependent evaluation, that the information containedin the existing EIS has been accurately presented; and(c) the department determines that the informationcontained in the existing EIS is applicable to the actioncurrently being considered.(2) A summary of the existing EIS or the portionadopted or incorporated by reference and a list of placeswhere the full text is available shall be circulated as apart of the EIS and treated as part of the EIS for all purposes,including, if required, preparation of a final EIS.(3) If all or any part of an existing EIS is adopted or incorporatedby reference, the department shall preparean addendum as part of the draft EIS. The addendumshall include as a minimum:(a) a description of a specific action to be taken; and(b) any impacts, alternatives, or other items that werenot covered in the original statement.(4) The department shall take full responsibility for theportions of the previous EIS adopted or incorporated. Ifthe department disagrees with certain portions of theprevious EIS, the points of disagreement shall be specificallydiscussed in the addendum.(5) No material may be adopted or incorporated byreference unless it is reasonably available for inspectionby interested persons within the time allowed for comment.(6) Where part of an existing EIS or contemporaneouslyprepared EIS is incorporated by reference, that partincorporated shall include sufficient material to insurethe part incorporated will be considered in the contextit was presented in the original EIS.Length, Format, and Summary of EnvironmentalImpact Statement, (l) The recommendedmaximum length of the text of either a draft or final EISis 150 pages. For an EIS on a complex proposal therecommended maximum length is 300 pages.(2) An EIS shall be written in plain and conciselanguage.

EQC Eighth AnnuoJ Report - Page(3) A department shall prepare with the draft and finalEIS a brief summary which shall be available for distributionseparate from the EIS. The summary shall describe:(a) the proposed action being evaluated by the EIS, theimpacts, and the alternatives;(b) areas of controversy and major conclusions; and(c) a department's proposed decision, when appropriate.Interagency Cooperation. When it is a lead agency,a department may request the participation in preparationof an EIS of other state agencies which havespecial expertise in areas which should be addressed inthe EIS. When participation of a department is requestedunder this rule, it shall make a good-faith effort toparticipate in the EIS as requested, with its expenses forparticipation in the EIS paid by the agency collectingthe EIS fee if one is collected.Joint Environmental Impact Statements, (l) Iftwo or more state agencies have jurisdiction over a project,proposal, or major state action which will have asignificant impact on the quality of the human environmentand one is clearly the lead agency, a departmentshall cooperate with the lead agency in the preparationof a joint EIS. If a department is clearly the lead agency,it shall be responsible for coordinating the preparationof the EIS as required by this rule. When two or moreagencies have jurisdiction over the same project, proposalor major state action and lead agency status cannotbe resolved, the departments shall request a determinationfrom the governor. The departments shallresolve the lead agency question or submit it to thegovernor within 15 days of complete application.(2) A department shall cooperate with federal andlocal agencies in preparing ElSs. This cooperation mayinclude:(a) joint environmental research studies,(b) joint public hearings, or(c) joint environmental impact statements. (Whenfederal laws have EIS requirements, a department shall,when practical and expedient, cooperate in fulfilling therequirement of the federal as well as the state laws sothat one document will comply with all applicablelaws.)(4) While work on a programmatic EIS is in progress,a department may not take major state actions coveredby the program in that interim period unless such action:(a) is part of an ongoing program;(b) is justified independently of the program; or(c) will not prejudice the ultimate decision on the program.Interim action prejudices the ultimate decisionon the program when it tends to determine subsequentdevelopment or foreclose reasonable alternatives.(5) Actions taken under subsection (4) shall be accompaniedby an EIS, if required.Emergencies. A department may take or permit actionhaving a significant impact on the quality of thehuman environment in an emergency situation withoutpreparing an EIS. Within 30 days following initiation ofthe action, the department shall notify the Governor andthe EQC as to the need for such action and the impactsand results of it. Emergency actions shall be limited tothose actions immediately necessary to control the impactsof the emergency.Confidentiality. Information declared confidentialby state law or by an order of a court shall be excludedfrom a PER and EIS. An agency shall briefly state thegeneral topic of the confidential information excluded.Resolution of Statutory Conflicts. If conflictingprovisions of other state laws prevent a departmentfrom fully complying with this subchapter, the departmentshall notify the Governor and the EQC of thenature of the conflict and shall suggest a proposedcourse of action that will enable the department to complyto the fullest extent possible with the provisions ofMEPA. This modification shall be prepared within 45days of decision on the project, proposal, or major stateaction.Disclosure. No person who has a financial interestin the outcome of the project may contract with adepartment for the preparation of an EIS or any portionthereof. Persons contracting with the department in thepreparation of an EIS must execute a disclosure statement,in affidavit form prepared by the department,demonstrating compliance with this prohibition.Preparation, Content and Distribution of aProgrammatic Review, (l) If a department is contemplatinga series of agency-initiated actions, programs,or policies which in part or in total will constitutea major state action significantly affecting thequality of the human environment, the department mayprepare a programmatic review discussing the impactsof the series of actions.(2) The programmatic review shall include, as a minimum,a concise, analytical discussion of alternativesand the cumulative environmental effects of these alternatives.(3) The time limits specified for distribution andpublic comment of EISs apply to the distribution of programmaticreviews.Public Hearings, (l) When a public hearing is heldon an EIS, a department shall advise the applicantwhose project is being evaluated in the EIS, personswho have submitted comments on the draft EIS, andpersons who received a copy of the draft EIS of the dateand location of the hearing and that the applicant shallhave an opportunity to respond to all oral commentsreceived at the hearing. The department shall also issuea news release to radio stations and newspapers ofgeneral circulation in the area to be affected by the proposalprior to the hearing. If the newspaper articles pursuantto these news releases do not appear, the departmentshall cause a legal notice to appear in a newspaperof general circulation in the area to be affected. Thenews release and notice shall advise the public as to the

EQC Eighth Annual fleporl Page-nature of testimony it wishes to receive at the hearing.The applicant may respond orally at the conclusion ofthe hearing and in writing at a later date. The hearingshall be held after the draft EIS has been circulated andprior to preparation of the final EIS.(2) The department shall hold a public hearing if requestedwithin 20 days of issuance of the draft EIS byeither;(a) 10% or 25, whichever is less, of the persons whowill be directly affected by the proposed action, or(b) by another agency which has jurisdiction over theaction, or(c) an association having not less than 25 memberswho will be directly affected. Instances of doubt shall beresolved in favor of holding a public hearing.(3) No person may give testimony at the hearing as arepresentative of a participating agency. Such arepresentative may, however, at the discretion of thehearing officer, give a statement regarding his or heragency's authority on procedures and answer questionsfrom the public.Fees: Determination of Authority to Impose.(1] When an application for a lease, permit, contract,license or certificate is expected to result in a departmentincurring expenses in excess of $2,500 to compilean environmental impact statement, the applicant shallbe required to pay a fee in an amount which the departmentreasonably estimates, as set forth in this rule, willbe expended to gather information and data necessaryto compile an EIS.(2) The department will determine within 30 daysafter a completed application is filed whether it will benecessary to compile an environmental impact statementand assess a fee as prescribed by this rule. If it isdetermined that an environmental impact statement isnecessary, the department shall make a preliminaryestimate of the costs to compile the statement. Thisestimate will include a summary of the data and informationneeds and the itemized costs of acquiring thedata and information, including salaries, equipmentcosts and any other expense associated with the collectionof data and information for the EIS.(3) If the preliminary estimated costs of acquiring thedata and information to prepare an EIS total more than$2,500, the department shall notify the applicant that afee must be paid and submit an itemized preliminaryestimate of the cost of acquiring the data and informationnecessary to compile an EIS. The applicant shallalso be advised that a notarized and detailed estimate ofthe cost of the project being reviewed in the EIS must besubmitted within 15 days after receipt of the request. Inaddition, the applicant shall be asked to describe thedata and information available or being prepared by theapplicant which can possibly be used in the EIS. The applicantmay indicate which of the department's estimatedcosts of acquiring data and information for the EISwould be duplicative or excessive. The applicant shallbe granted upon request an extension of the 15-dayperiod for submission of an estimate of the project'scost and a critique of the department's preliminary EISdata and information accumulation cost assessment.Fees: Determination of Amount, (l) After receiptof the applicant's estimated cost of the project andanalysis of a department's preliminary estimate of thecost of acquiring information and data for the EIS, thedepartment shall notify the applicant within 15 days ofthe final amount of the fee to be assessed. The fee assessedshall be based on the projected cost of acquiringall of the information and data needed for the EIS. If theapplicant has gathered or is in the process of gatheringinformation and data that can be used in the EIS, thedepartment shall only use that portion of the fee that isneeded to verify the information and data. Any unusedportion of the fee assessed may be returned to the applicantwithin a reasonable time after the information anddata have been collected or the information and datasubmitted by the applicant have been verified, but in noevent later than the deadline specified in these rules.The department may extend the 15-day period providedfor review of the applicant's submittal but not to exceed45 days if it believes that the project cost estimate submittedis inaccurate or additional information must beobtained to verify the accuracy of the project costestimate. The fee assessed shall not exceed the followinglimitations:(a) 2% of any estimated cost up to $1,000,000, plus(b) 1% of any estimated cost over $1,000,000 and up to$20,000,000, plus(c) 1/2 of 1% of any estimated cost over $20,000,000 andup to $100,000,000, plus(d) V* of 1% of any estimated cost over $100,000,000and up to $300,000,000, plus(e) Vb of 1% of any estimated cost in excess of$300,000,000.(2) If an applicant for a lease, permit, contract, licenseor certificate believes that the fee assessed is excessiveor does not conform to the requirements of this rule orTitle 75, Chapter 1, Part 2, MCA, the applicant may requesta hearing before the board pursuant to the contestedcase provisions of the Montana administrativeprocedure act. If a hearing is held on the fee assessed asauthorized by this subsection, the department shall proceedwith its analysis of the project wherever possible.The fact that a hearing has been requested shall not begrounds for delaying consideration of an application exceptto the extent that the portion of the fee in questionaffects the ability of the department to collect the dataand information necessary for the EIS.Use of Fee. (l) The fee assessed hereunder shall onlybe used to gather data and information necessary tocompile an environmental impact statement. No feemay be assessed if a department intends only to compilea preliminary environmental review or a programmaticreview. If the department collects a fee and later determinesthat additional data and information must be collectedor that data and information supplied by the applicantand relied upon by the department are inaccurateor invalid, an additional fee may be assessedunder the procedures outlined in these rules if the maximumfee has not been collected.(2) When the department has completed work on theEIS, a complete accounting of how the department expendedthe fee collected shall be submitted to the applicant.If the cost of compiling an environmental impactstatement is less than the fee collected, the remainder ofthe fee shall be refunded to the applicant without interestwithin 45 days after work has been completed onthe finalEIS.

EQC Eighth Annual Report - Page 190Documents Submittedunder MEPA, 1981-1983

1500 copies of this public document were published for ototal cost of $6,050, or o unit cost of $4.03. This includes$5.300 for printing and $750 for distribution.