taking the pulse of riparian protection in montana

8/3/2019 Taking the Pulse of Riparian Protection in Montana

1/107

Taking the Pulse of RiparianProtection in Montana


2/107

NOTE TO THE READERDecember 2010

Friends of Conservation:

It starts, early in the mountain summer, far back among the high spilling slopes of the

Bridger Range of southwestern Montana. The single sound is hidden water - the south

fork of Sixteenmile Creek diving down its willow-masked gulch. The stream flees north

through this secret and peopleless land until, under the fir-dark flanks of Hatfield

Mountain, a bow of meadow makes the riffled water curl wide to the west. At this

interruption, a low rumple of the mountain knolls itself up watchfully, and atop it, likea sentry box over the frontier between the sly creek and the prodding meadow, perches

our single- room herding cabin.

Thus begins native son Ivan Doig's classic bookThis House of Sky. Doig grew up herding

sheep. His works show us that he knew the land and the waters of Montana. How many

of us have ever used the word sly to describe a creek? The document in your handsreflects our belief that there are many Montanans who see our rivers and creeks every

day, who have decades-long connections with them, and who might not use the word sly,

but know what Doig meant when he did. Herein we set out to capture those Montanans

thoughts and concerns, ideas and inventions, and trials and errors in their dealings with

riparian areas.

Our waters set the agenda for almost all of our daily activities. From that cup of coffee in

the morning to the first spray that leaves the center pivot or lawn sprinkler to the shower

at the end of the day, our lives change when we do not have water available.

Conservation of water by protecting riparian areas is a big piece of assuring water


3/107

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Note to the Reader .......................................................................................................... 2Acknowledgements ......................................................................................................... 5

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 6

Section I: Best Management Practices Listening Sessions ................................................. 8

Project Background and Overview .................................................................................. 8

From Project Goals to Project Outcomes: What to Expect .............................................10

Limits of the Project: What Not to Expect ...................................................................... 11

What We Learned........................................................................................................... 12

General Observations ..................................................................................................... 12

Noteworthy Theme #1 Education ................................................................................ 15

Noteworthy Theme #2 Regulation .............................................................................. 16

Opportunities And Challenges ........................................................................................18

Gaps and Unanswered Questions .................................................................................. 22

Section II: Project Implications and Recommendations .................................................. 26

Riparian Leadership Roles ............................................................................................ 26

Local Entities ................................................................................................................. 27

State Entities .................................................................................................................. 27

Federal Entities .............................................................................................................. 29

Private Entities............................................................................................................... 30

Recommendation A: Develop and Enhance Education, Outreach and Technical


4/107

Action Step 8: Train Riparian Restoration/Protection Professionals And Develop

Standards For Systematic Installation Of Effective Riparian Bmps. ........................... 38

Recommendation D: Understand and Maximize the Economic Benefits of Protecting

Riparian Areas ............................................................................................................... 39

Action Step 9: Review Economic Literature And Incentive Programs, And Perform

Technical Cost-Benefit Analysis For Public And Private Settings. ................................ 39

Action Step 10: Compile And Disseminate Economic Benefit Information Through

Channels Identified In Recommendations A, B And C. ................................................ 39

Action Step 11: Explore Feasibility Of Developing A Cost-Benefit Assessment Tool ForUse In The Field. ............................................................................................................ 39

Other Possible Next Steps ............................................................................................. 40

Section III: Riparian Protection Profiles ......................................................................... 42

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 42

Profiles .......................................................................................................................... 42

Agriculture ..................................................................................................................... 42

Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 61

Development .................................................................................................................. 67

Weeds and Invasive Species .......................................................................................... 82

Education and Technical Tools ...................................................................................... 86

Incentives ....................................................................................................................... 97

Forestry Sector ............................................................................................................. 100

Appendix A Riparian BMPs Cited (Listening Sessions and Focus Groups ..................103


5/107

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors of this report would like to thank the many people who took the time toparticipate in the listening sessions and interviews for the profiles. Without their

willingness to share their experiences, this effort would have failed.

Mary Ellen Wolfe would like to extend thanks to all the Conservation DistrictSupervisors and staff who agreed to collaborate on this project and devoted time andeffort to co-sponsor listening sessions: Chris Evans, Lewis & Clark County; Toni Neslen,Cascade County; Larry Van Rinsum and Ginger Kauffman, Flathead County; Lori Zeizer

and Tara Comfort, Missoula County; Julie Ralston, Bitterroot County; Kris Hugulet andJohn Moodry, Mile High Conservation District; Danette Watson, Beaverhead County;Julie Goss, Richland County; Carol Watts, Custer County; and Walter Borntrager andPeggy Newton, Dawson County.

Karen Filipovich would like to thank everyone who participated in any way in the processof developing the profiles. Some people are mentioned prominently. Others do not havetheir names in print, but gave valuable insights and leads to projects and people that

would be interesting for the audience of this report. She would especially like to thankeveryone who granted an interview for this piece.

People who especially helped her through interviews, background information, leads,review and advice include: Tom Andersen, Karin Boyd, Christi Buffington, Brian Burkey,Drake Burford, Jim Darling, Janet Ellis, Vickie Edwards, Rob Ethridge, Charity Fechter,Doris Fischer, Bob Fouty, Todd Goode, Earl Guss, Terry Haughian, Sunni Heikes-Knapton, Tom Hinz, Matthew Jaeger, Stuart Jennings, Phil Johnson, Nick Kaufman,Michael Konen, Bruce Larsen, Jeff Laszlo, Bert Lindler, Tiffany Lyden, Nicole McClain,

Brian McDonald, Michael McHugh, Jane Mangold, Tom Martin, Chauncey Means, BillMilton, Mike Mooney, Marcie Murnion, Peter Neilsen, Fran Nunn, Tom Parker, BriannaRandall, Robert Ray, Lisa Reed, Sarah Richey, Larry van Rinsum, Alan Rollo, Jeff Ryan,Rusby Seabaugh, John Spencer, Bart Story, Brian Sugden, Lynda Saul, Jeff Tiberi, MarniTh S i T S T l D i V ll C d P hl M


6/107

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

What techniques are Montanans using to protect riparian areas? A broadspectrum of Montanans shared answers to this question at ten listening sessionsand two focus groups held statewide between January and July 2010. Researchand outreach through more than 60 personal interviews followed the listeningsessions to flesh out more detailed profiles of instructive best managementpractices (BMPs).

This report is divided into three sections. Section I details the actual listeningsessions. Section II makes recommendations for future actions. Section IIIprovides rich details about individual practices through the use of case profiles.

Two hundred and twenty five people attended the listening sessions, spearheadedby the Montana Association of Conservation Districts and cosponsored by tenlocal Conservation Districts from Glendive to Corvallis. More than 92 techniqueswere described by individuals from agriculture, transportation, energy and public

utilities, recreation, conservation, municipal and county governments, forestry,public land managers and small business. These results are reported in Section Iof this document. More detailed notes from all listening sessions and focusgroups can be found online athttp://montanabmp.pbworks.com/

Implications and recommendations are also addressed in Section I, which looksat what the project results suggest for possible future actions. Given what waslearned, the following recommendations are made to advance riparianprotection, including the use of riparian BMPs, in the future.

Recommendation A: Develop and Enhance Riparian Education,Outreach & Technical Assistance

Action Step 1 Catal e and s pport local comm nit specific
http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/http://montanabmp.pbworks.com/


7/107

Recommendation D: Understand and Maximize the Economic Benefitsof Protecting Riparian Areas

Action Step 9: Review economic literature and incentiveprograms and perform technical cost-benefit analysis for publicand private settings.Action Step 10: Compile and disseminate economic benefitinformation through channels identified in Recommendations A, Band C.Action Step 11: Explore feasibility of developing a cost benefitassessment tool for use in the field.

Deeper insights into BMP implementation were obtained through numerousinterviews summarized in Section II of this report. These profiles enrich theimpressionistic stories from the listening sessions by delving deeper into themotivations, the challenges, and the lessons learned from representative sectorsof the population and economy. All told, this report takes the pulse of thepresent state of riparian literacy in Montana, providing a qualitative overviewof techniques in use.

This document should be of particular interest to members of the GovernorsTask Force for Riparian Protection, the Montana Association of ConservationDistricts, watershed groups, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and local,state and federal agencies involved in riparian protection. The profiles in SectionIII may be of interest to citizens from the sectors which are covered withinagriculture, education and outreach, streamside property owners, etc.


8/107

Riparian BMPs--Definitions

Riparian refers to the green

zonesalong water courses and

at water bodies which are

distinctly different than

surrounding lands due to

vegetation, soils and the

presence of water. They are the

transitional zones between

terrestrial and aquatic

ecosystems, where even

SECTION I:BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES LISTENING

SESSIONS

PROJECT BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW

In the fall of 2009, a team of people from the Montana Association of Conservation

Districts (MACD) and the Governors Task Force for Riparian Protection initiated acollaborative listening session project to ask Montanans what techniques theyve tried

and used to protect rivers and streams. Working in partnership with local Conservation

Districts (CDs), ten Riparian Best Management Practices (BMP) Listening Sessions were

held in Helena, Kalispell, Great Falls, Glendive, Sidney, Miles City, Missoula, Corvallis,

Butte and Dillon between January and June 2010. During July, two focus groups were

convened in Billings and Lewistown to fill in information

gaps identified from the earlier listening sessions. As a wrap-up activity, a Report Back meeting was held in Helena on

October 12 to share observations and findings with interested

individuals and agencies, and solicit input regarding

implications and recommendations for future action.

The project was made possible with support from an EPA

grant to the Wetlands Program of the Montana Department

of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Contractors Mary EllenWolfe (Civil Dialogue) and Karen Filipovich were retained to

do the work. To obtain broad geographic and demographic

t ti th j t Ad i C itt id tifi d


9/107

input from these interests, two targeted focus groups were convened in Billings and

Lewistown in July. These two focus groups provided input from several of the invited

sectors, with the exception of transportation and development.

Summary data from the listening sessions, focus groups and report back session is

provided below. Additional details about the types of BMPs and sectors identified at each

session are attached in Appendix A. Riparian BMPs Cited (Listening Sessions and Focus

Groups).

RIPARIAN BMP LISTENING SESSIONS

Sponsor andLocation

Date Time Number ofParticipants

BMPsMentioned

Lewis & Clark CDHelena

January 26,2010

5:30-7 p.m. 28 7

Flathead CDKalispell

February 16,2010

7-9 p.m. 23 12

Dawson CDGlendive

February 19,2010

1:15-2 p.m. 50 0

Cascade CDGreat Falls

February 24,2010

2-4 p.m. 15 3

Richland CDSidney

March 3, 2010 3-5 p.m. 8 9

Custer CDMiles City

March 4, 2010 1:30-3:30 p.m. 17 9

Missoula CDMissoula

March 15, 2010 1-3 p.m. 41 8

Bitterroot CD

Corvallis

March 16, 2010 7-9 p.m. 15 7

Mile High CDButte

May 15, 2010 1-3 p.m. 6 4

Beaverhead CD June 15, 2010 7-9 p.m. 4 1


10/107

FROM PROJECT GOALS TO PROJECT OUTCOMES: WHAT TO EXPECT

Youre learning w hat is acceptable to Montanans today .--Listening Session Participant, Miles City

How do we get more people involved with a program like this?--Listening Session Participant, Butte

Ten listening sessions and two focus groups generated many Montanans perspectives

about what good BMPs are, which theyve used successfully and which they adapted or

abandoned. The sessions also yielded information about the technical, economic,

regulatory and other challenges associated with instituting BMPs. The results offermuch food for thought and possible future action. But what did the project originally set

out to accomplish, how well did it hit the mark and what should the reader expect in

reviewing the project outcomes?

In general, the project accomplished its primary goal -- to hear what BMPs are working

for Montanans. A second goal was to recognize and acknowledge the value of local know-

how and experience. The project did this well, for the listening sessions allowed an open

airing of information among participants. After one listening session, we receivedfeedback when a participant expressed concern that what he considered to be a poor

management practice was cited as a best management practice by another person and no

one corrected it during the session. Because the intent was to listen and learn from

Montanans experiences, participants comments were purposefully received without

qualification, correction or judgment.

In essence, the listening sessions took the pulse of the present state of riparian BMP

implementation among those who showed up representing certain sectors of the

population. The sessions covered the human landscape in a broad sweep, providing

insights into the real-world of human attitudes, beliefs, practices and experiences


11/107

Any time a statement is made that wakes up your thought process it is worth the

time spent and that happened more than once today. Thank you for inviting me.

Listening Session Participant (Sidney)

Recommendations and action steps suggested by the outcomes from this project are

provided in Section II. Project Implications and Recommendations. Because the project

was modified and enriched by a number of interviews yielding riparian case profiles,

these are integrated as much as possible into the recommendations and action steps.

Riparian case profiles, presented in Section III of this document, were compiled toobtain additional depth and expanded treatment of riparian BMPs used by different

sectors and processes. These stories are rich with individual experience and insights to

give the interested reader a deeper understanding of the many tasks, partners and

challenges involved in implementing riparian BMPs.

Though the primary focus of Section I is on the listening sessions, to the degree possible,

we also make reference to insights or experiences obtained in Section III interviews

which affirm, illustrate or reinforce observations arising from the listening sessions.

LIMITS OF THE PROJECT: WHAT NOT TO EXPECT

Very interesting, but we have just scratched the surface.

--Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

Having reviewed the projects outcomes, its important to also recognize its limitations.This report offers a practitioners approach to research methodology. It provides a

qualitative survey of public perceptions, attitudes, understanding and experience. The

reader will not find a comprehensive survey of riparian BMPs that have been evaluated


12/107

(and constituency) of its own. The forestry sector was invited to attend listening sessions

and mentioned at each session as a good example of what one sector has accomplished to

protect Montanas rivers and streams, but was not a central part of presentations at thelistening sessions. A summary of the Forestry sectors hybrid approach to water quality

protection can be found in the profiles in Section II on page 100.

WHATWE LEARNED

What can be said, generally, about what was heard in the twelve sessions held from

Sidney to Corvallis, Glendive to Missoula, Dillon to Lewistown and more? A few

observations can be made that encapsulate what we heard. The authors acknowledge andaccept the risk of blurring, or inadvertently distorting important details from the record,

believing that a broad review can be useful and informative for the interested reader.

GENERAL OBSERVATIONSGeography Matters. There appears to be heightened awareness, knowledge and

experience of riparian areas and BMPs in more heavily populated, wetter areas in

western Montana (Missoula, the Flathead and the Bitterroot) than is the case in less

populated, drier eastern Montana. One strong message received in Glendive

(immediately below) suggested riparian areas may not even be on the radar screen of at

least some people living in dry land areas.

You are in eastern Montana. Its dry land country.There ARE no riparian areas here.

Listening Session Participant (Glendive)

There is broad based consensus on BMPs in riparian areas even from those thatopposed setbacks. Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

One size doesnt fit all There was broad acknowledgement across the state that when it


13/107

described. The economic costs of instituting BMPs were frequently mentioned in

association with some lack lack of incentives, lack of data, lack of understanding,

lack of education, lack of emphasis, lack of knowledge, unfair distribution of costs andbenefits, etc. For example,

To the extent you can, show how stewardship is in the best interest of alandowner in multiple ways, including their financial interest.

-- Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

Though somewhat broad and fuzzy in definition, what became clear is that there is a

need for additional study and analysis to flesh out the dimensions of the economic costs

and benefits of riparian protection and to disseminate these results to the audiences who

need them. Section II. Recommendation D (beginning on page 39) addresses this need

and includes Action Steps 9, 10 and 11 to obtain a better understanding this important

topic.

Whats a Good BMP? There is no universally shared idea of what constitutes a good

BMP. A look at the BMPs that surfaced in the listening sessions illustrates this point (see

Appendix A). For example, some participants thought rip-rap (stone or concrete used to

stabilize streambanks) was a good BMP whereas others thought it was harmful to

natural stream channel migration, sedimentation processes, habitat and biological

processes. Furthermore, even things like grazing BMPs for riparian areas are not all

thought of the same way.

What accounts for these divergent perspectives? There are likely many factors, but

among the most evident are differing site characteristics, project scale, objectives,knowledge base, timing and other issues.

Recently our group (Audubon) was looking at a rip rap project that seemed to be


14/107

A Riparian BMP Model? A universally accepted idea of what constitutes a good BMP

may be lacking, but there is one sectoral example of riparian BMPs that is widely touted

as a success. The voluntary Forestry BMPs program along with regulations institutedthrough Montanas Streamside Management Zone Act are commonly held up together as

a successful story for water quality goals and riparian protection which was instituted by

the wood products industry. This example was articulately described and endorsed at the

Kalispell listening session by a representative of Plum Creek Timber and others, and was

also highlighted at other listening sessions because periodic audits of participating

landowners forests are demonstrating success. (The forestry sectors example is profiled

beginning on page 100 of Section III.)

Tension at the Common Pool. There was considerable recognition, particularly at

sessions in Western Montana, that BMPs instituted by individuals to address site-

specific needs or concerns sometimes work against (and even damage) upstream,

downstream and broader watershed-wide riparian protection goals and objectives. For

example, we heard:

Regardless the BMPs the Forest Service is doing, on a river system like the

Flathead, you only own one portion, and what you do is very different thanwhat you expect someone else does somewhere else. The BMPs have to be is it

good for the whole river? or is it only good for me?

--Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

Tension can arise because of differing objectives, for example saving my property vs.

no adverse impact on the river as a whole. It may mean making tradeoffs between

individual interests, adverse impacts to neighboring properties upstream and

downstream, and watershed-wide or community interests. It may be due to timing

differences between individual needs and opportunities in contrast to community needs

and opportunities. There may be no apparent mechanism (or forum) for bringing


15/107

NOTEWORTHYTHEME #1EDUCATIONAt the conclusion of most listening sessions participants were asked to reflect and write

down what weve learned about riparian BMPs. Here are a few sample responses:

Most landowners are motivated to do the right thing, but they need information

and resources to know w hat to do. Listening Session Participa nt (Bitterroot)

What Ive noticed is that most of the public doesnt have any idea what it takesto do work in the stream or even to work in dry creek bed. Focus Groupparticipant (Lewistown)

BMPs are needed for the real estate industry! The land does not recover from the

BEST subdivision. It will recover from the worst forestry or grazing operation,

given good BMPs and time. --Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

As it turned out, education was mentioned as vitally important at virtually every listening

session. Many participants even suggested particularly needy audiences and potential

topics they or others need to know. The following groups and subjects were specificallymentioned:

City/County Governmentso New examples and how tos for instituting BMPs for stormwater

run-off are needed

o One small town planner asked for BMPs related to agricultureo County Sanitarians, named by one participant as the front line of

riparian education for new landowners in rural MT need relevant

and useful information to share with landowners

o Floodplain managers, whose siting decisions affect riparian areas,


16/107

Listening session and focus group participants also suggested several themes or

messages for some target audiences:

Change the dominant mindset. For example, (1) stress prevention in the road

construction industry; (2) For streamside landowners, stress BMPs as

maintenance for individual owners in a long-term relationship with the health

of their land.

Tap the eloquence of ranchers and farmers who have instructive experiences

and share these with others.

Keep it messy. Riparian health is based on vegetated stream corridors.

These are valuable resourcesprotecting them will protect your propertys

value.

It's just physics. Knowing how streams and rivers operate can help you make

better management decisions.

At the final Report Back session in Helena on October 12, there was broad acceptance

that local educational efforts, relevant to local needs and interests, accompanied by

appropriate state-wide information and training, are particularly desired. This suggests

that local entities, such as CDs, watershed groups, or local resource managers (Natural

Resources Conservation Service, Bureau of Land Management, and County Extension)

may be best situated to address such needs. Smaller groups (NGOs, etc.) may, however,

need to link up and tap other entities resources (state, national, agencies, etc.) to get theeducational materials they need.

Recommendation A and Action Steps 1 and 2 which will be found in Section II


17/107

As it turns out, I can remember a fable that fits this so wellseveral blindpeople trying to describe an elephant by touch. This is whats going on in allof this, each riparian area. Each agency does a pretty good job of what theyare doing, and they keep it to themselves. They dont know that the otherguy is doing something and it has a little different perspective. What I see isall the agencies are so busy doing what theyre doing, their ow n thing, thatthey dont talk to each other. If they dont talk to each other, the public isreally in the dark. If I have one thing to say its get the agencies to talk to oneanother. This is really necessary. --Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

There are too many regulators and that causes confusion. Montana

needs to get its gumption up to speed and identify who does what. Stop thecontrary conflicts from the several agencies. --Listening SessionParticipant (Missoula)

The list of issues with regulation and permitting doesnt end there.

At least one municipality working to institute MS4 stormwater managementpractices views the requirements as unfunded federal mandates. 1

Some regulated industries (energy pipelines and road construction) expressedfrustration that they are held to higher standards of riparian (and water

quality) protection than adjacent agricultural landowners whose riparian

protection activities are largely voluntary. One case example cited was

terrible. (Billings and Lewistown)

They are

working diligently with inadequate resources to come into compliance withthe MS4 regulations. (Billings)

The financial costs associated with regulation and permitting are perceived bysome rural landowners to be, in and of themselves, a disincentive to do the

right thing in riparian areas.


18/107


19/107

Riparian literacythe widespread public understanding and acceptance of riparian

functions and values as an accepted reason to practice and protect these areas from loss

and degradationis lacking. How might it be achieved? Minimally, it requires a knownand receptive audience, a relevant and meaningful message, and a messenger who is

perceived and received as legitimate.

It was some of the bumps we met in the road as this project was initially implemented

that reminded us that we could have tended more carefully to this know your audience,

plan your message and choose the best messenger dictum.

We were reminded early on that the terminology at the heart of this project riparian

and BMPs might be a put-off to some of our target audiences. For instance, one

Glendive session participant told the facilitator that the only people interested in

riparian areas are government bureaucrats like you. And we also heard from Tom Hinz,

Director of the Montana Wetlands Legacy and a respected riparian practitioner:

"I don't ever use the term BMP with a landowner. It puts them on the defensive

because it immediately sounds like their current land practices are bad.

At least one listening session participant reiterated the same point, noting furthermore

that many successful practices may be in use but are not acknowledged as BMPs:

There are a lot of successful practices already in place that might not be

readily recognized as a BMP. Maybe the term BMP is a little off-setting to

some folks. --Listening Session Participant (Great Falls)

The lesson from this experience is that we speak in terms that are meaningful to those we

aim to reach. We should delve as deeply as possible, ahead of time, to know our

audiences. Ideally, we would speak in the voices of the sector, as was mentioned at the

Helena Report Back session, so receiving audiences would readily receive our message


20/107

purposes with riparian protection. We heard about both of these examples (and more)

during the listening sessions, suggesting more challenges to be addressed.

Stories from Missoula, the Flathead and the Bitterroot watersheds revealed that

frustration, confusion, delays and even hostility can arise from inadequate or poor

communication and coordination among different agencies permitting processes and

conflicting statutory mandates and agency goals. For example:

We need better coordination between agencies. Its difficult for an individuallandowner to get work approved and/or implemented. Cost is an effective

barrier to getting work done. Listening Session Participant (Missoula)

The expense and time required for obtaining necessary permits, coupled with the rising

costs and increased restrictions around BMPs can seriously dissuade landowners from

even attempting to do the right thing.

One of the difficulties Ive found in working with the county, is that if

landowners want to install a riparian or vegetative buffer, they would need

to get a permit, because that would be disturbance within the lakeshoreprotection zone. We need to figure out how to get around having to pay a

large application fee when someone wants to do the right thing. Listening

Session Participant (Flathead)

Then there are the challenges associated with conflicting statutory or regulatory

mandates that can be at cross purposes. For example:

not only do the agencies not always hear w hat one another are doing, butoften times their directions, like the Army Corps flood control, doesnt domuch for the riparian zone. They can do it, they can fund it and the directionthey go may not be the best way to do it Thats the challenge: to balance the


21/107

agencies, given their differing objectives, may come back with differing ideas about

conditions and design considerations of a project. This causes some of the frustration we

heard.

Economic incentives to protect riparian areas through BMPs. This challenge has several

facets. One is the need for basic data, examples or information that shows the

comparative costs of different management techniques or options for landowners

considering instituting riparian BMPs. A second facet is the need for information that

demonstrates or provides examples of riparian protection measures as enhancements to

property values. Developers, Realtors and streamside property owners would all benefit

from easily accessible examples.

Tangible cost effective examples of prevention cannot be over emphasized.

Realtors especially need to comprehend this as their profit motive often

directly conflicts with Riparian protection/enhancement. --Listening Session

Participant (Flathead)

Another economic challenge is the need to expand, increase and/or adjust incentiveprograms (such as the Natural Resources Conservation Services Conservation Reserve

Enhancement Program) so that more people can effectively implement BMPs, given

individual site potential. In several of the case profiles, for example, interviewees

mentioned that NRCS incentive programs that had woody vegetation requirements were

difficult to accomplish with the timeline and guidelines of the programs. (See Section III

profiles on the Konen Family Farm (page 46) and Middle Madison (page 54) for

example.) These objectives are important, but technical details regarding how they are

accomplished seem to lead to frustration and added cost, even in cases where the project

is eventually a success.


22/107

Case profiles in Section III which mention the challenges associated with enforcement

(or lack of it) can be found in the Lake Helena story beginning on page 72 and the Design

and Development Roundup beginning on page 67.

Using the power of group participation to solve real-world problems collaboratively.

There are proven ways for negotiating a balance between individual and broader

watershed or community-wide goals and objectives and variable distribution of the costs

and benefits of riparian protection. The Upper Clark Fork Steering Committee is one

long-term example that has been bringing diverse stakeholders together to work

collaboratively since 1991. Other watershed groups such as the Blackfoot Challenge,

Yellowstone River Coordination Council, and Bitter Root Watershed Forum alsoillustrate this point. These entities are excellent examples of ongoing community and

watershed-wide efforts to address big picture problems by bringing all interests with a

stake in the outcome together for collaborative problem solving.

Inevitably however, changes and new challenges arise, sometimes in areas lacking

watershed groups or other ongoing collaborative forums. For example, the Custer County

Floodplain Administrator spoke of the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(DFIRM) and the challenges they have wrought for Miles City and area residents whonow face new regulatory requirements and costs. He indicated there was a need to bring

affected citizens and agencies together to discuss such critical issues as who will pay?

The greatest challenge this fellow faces is bringing the diverse stakeholders together to

work towards solutions. City council meetings, county commission meetings and the

like, are commonly not structured for dialogue or collaborative problem solving. There is

a need to build local capacity to organize such efforts and/or create structured

collaborative problem solving groups or processes.

GAPS AND UNANSWERED QUESTIONSUnanswered questions were another byproduct of the listening sessions. Some were


23/107

population, rather than losing it. So, its logical that some argue that development and

construction sectors do indeed comprise a new frontier for riparian BMP outreach,

education and action.

Participation from the development community was slight at the listening sessions. Two

representatives from the real estate sector and one highway construction engineer

attended. . The reasons for this limited participation are unclear, but could include

insufficient outreach and promotion, lack of awareness of and/or interest in the topic,

scheduling conflicts, etc. We failed to learn as much as possible about this sectors

needs, interests and concerns related to riparian protection. We did obtain insights into

the development sectors operating environment through the development casespresented in Section III beginning on page 67. But there is more work to be done to

better understand these industries and forge meaningful partnerships with them for

improved riparian protection. Recommendation B and Action Step 4 in Section II (page

35) aim to build collaborative relationships with the development community and

address these gaps.

On another note, should we assume that the old frontiers of riparian education and

outreachagriculture and forestryhave been satisfactorily addressed? Not necessarily.The listening sessions indicate there are still people in the agricultural sector who lack

understanding and knowledge of the important functions and values that riparian areas

serve. This became most evident in this project from feedback obtained in dry land

regions of the state, where some landowners seemed almost surprised to learn there are

riparian areas.

The forest practices industry, by comparison, conducts periodic audits which show a

demonstrable record of accomplishment. Who audits agriculture? A clear picture ofaccomplishment in this sector is lacking.


24/107

riparian BMPs this project set out to find? Only concerted effort would reveal answers to

these questions.

Optimal Education. In several sessions, participants wondered about sectors that wereunrepresented yet can have potentially significant impacts on riparian areas (e.g.

snowplows or energy pipelines). How do these groups institute BMPs when working in

riparian areas?

Also unanswered were questions relating to where education would be most effective and

accessible in the processes people participate in when undertaking activities that

necessitate riparian protection. When and where is the educational opportunity most

ripe? When is a Montanan most receptive? Is it at the point of permitting? Or is it in the

land exchange buy-sell? Or is it problem specific--whenever a specific management

challenge arises?

Another gap in the listening sessions was that virtually no one specified how they

thought education should be delivered.And we heard noticeable frustration from agency

people in several parts of Montana that SO many information brochures and materials

have been developed and distributed, and so many years of outreach have been spent onriparian education, yet people still need more riparian resources and BMP information.

What accounts for this?

Perhaps it is time to take a hard look at the educational methods that have been

predominant. Are we really taking the time to know our target audiences? Are there

more effective ways to advance riparian literacy and the use of BMPs than weve yet

utilized? Are we using the best messengers? Recommendations and action items that

follow in Section II beginning on page 31 attempt to tackle these issues head on.

Regulation. As was indicated earlier, attitudes about regulation ran the gamut in the

listening sessions and raise specific questions that merit further thought and


25/107

Environmental Results of Riparian BMPs. At the first listening session in Helena, one

participant asked to see the evidence that riparian BMPs are yielding demonstrated

results, such as improved water quality, improved fish or wildlife habitat, bank

stabilization, etc. The case examples found in Section III of this document provide

evidence in narrative form. A compilation and synthesis of demonstrated evidence would

make a persuasive public information and education piece.

The Costs of Doing Nothing. A significant gap in the listening sessions was discussion of

the costs and consequences of doing no riparian protection. In the brief presentation

made at the start of each listening session, riparian function and valuesthe rationale

for protectionwere reviewed. Beyond this, there was no articulation of the negativeresult of not instituting best management practices to protect riparian functions and

values from harm. One person at the final Report Back session in Helena gave a

suggestion that others present affirmed would be helpful: to tell stories and share photos

of the damages that individual action/inaction can do. The thought expressed there was

that visual images, for example, are powerful. So worst case or no action stories

should not be overlooked, particularly if they effectively drive home the reasons for

riparian protection, including the economic impacts.

No Adverse Impacts. Another unmentioned and particularly relevant topic is the no

adverse impact (NAI) concept used for planning and managing development in

floodplains. The Association of State Floodplain Managers (ASFPM) defines NAI as an

approach that ensures the action of any community or property owner, public or private,

does not adversely impact the property and rights of others.According to the ASFPM:An adverse impact can be measured by an increase in flood stages, flood velocity,

flows, the potential for erosion and sedimentation, degradation of water quality, or

increased cost of public services. No Adverse Impact floodplain management extends

beyond the floodplain to include managing development in the watersheds where


26/107

SECTION II:PROJECT IMPLICATIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Riparian Best Management Practices Listening Session Project generated thoughtful

discussion and much information to help us understand the present state of grassroots

riparian protection in Montana. What we learned is that there is more work to be done

by just about every interest that has a voluntary or regulatory hand in it. Much ground

remains to be covered before riparian protection, and the BMPs to achieve it, are well-

understood, well-accepted, and widely practiced.

Given these facts and the limited listening nature of this project, we recommend that

this report be a springboard towards a more strategic and reinvigorated approach to

riparian protection. Many heads must be put to this task.

RIPARIAN LEADERSHIP ROLESJust about every Montanan could be said to have a role in protecting riparian areas:

streamside landowners and citizens, public entities, and private businesses. We beginbelow by identifying the key public local, state and federal entities, already bearing roles

and responsibilities involving riparian areas, for each of these could take lead roles in

responding, as appropriate, to specific recommendations and action steps that follow.

How these entities use their responsibilities and engage the private sector will help

determine the future of riparian area health. Private sector roles and responsible

organizations are also vitally important to successful riparian protection in Montana, so

entities with riparian leadership roles in the private realm are also identified below.

Finally, private landowners are the streamside stewards of many miles of riparian

corridors in Montana These landowners and other citizens enjoy and benefit from


27/107

- Identify partners and leverage resources to achieve riparian protection goals.LOCAL ENTITIESFloodplain Administrators administer and enforce local communities floodplain

ordinances to reduce flood losses and protect property, natural resources and floodplain

functions.

County Sanitarians roles and responsibilities vary, particularly in less populated

areas, but may include management and oversight of septic system siting and

information, solid waste disposal, junk vehicles, flood prevention, construction and

demolition. (During this project, one participant described sanitarians as the front line

for riparian information and resources for new streamside landowners and developers in

rural communities.)

City and County Planning Departmen t Staffwork hand in hand with the public,

Planning Boards and elected local decision makers by handling land use planning and

zoning, including subdivision regulations and growth plans. In some counties this may

include flood plain administration

City and County Planning Boar ds are comprised of local volunteers who review

construction and development proposals and make recommendations to local decision

makers based on their review.

City and County Commissioner s are the locally elected leaders who make decisions

involving planning, development, stormwater discharge and other issues that can impact

or protect riparian areas and floodplains.

Conservation Districts in every county in Montana are political subdivisions of the

state whose responsibilities already include a variety of streamside management

activities Their roles include administering the Natural Streambed and Land


28/107

Montana Depar tment of Natural Resources and Conser vation (DNRC)

W ater Resour ces, Resource Development and Forestry Divisions

The Water Management Bureau provides technical, planning and assistance services tolocal watershed groups and develops and administers the State Water Plan.

The Water Operations Bureau assists the 110 locally administered floodplain

management programs throughout Montana in reducing the loss of life and structural

property through wise floodplain development. This involves reducing the loss of

functional floodplains by decreasing stream bank erosion due to unwise floodplain

development throughout Montana.

The Conservation Districts Bureau supports and assists local Conservation Districts

through technical assistance, watershed planning assistance, grants, loans, education

and other resources provision.

The Resource Development Bureauadministers several grants and loan programs andprovides assistance to Conservation Districts for the administration of water

reservations. The grant and loan programs that are administered by the Bureau total

over $340 million in bond authority and over $10 million in grants each biennium.

The Forestry Assistance Bureau provides education, technical assistance, and financial

assistance and facilitates partnerships with communities and landowners to promote

sustainable forests and watersheds. Also administers the Streamside Management Zone

Law.

Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Par ks

The Fisheries Bureau is responsible for the management and perpetuation of Montana's

fish and other aquatic resources.


29/107

Department of Transportation

The Environmental Services Bureau provides leadership for the department to ensure

environmental excellence and compliance with all laws, rules, regulations, policies,orders, and agreements. Impacts of transportation construction and maintenance

activities on natural, social, and economic resources are identified and evaluated; and

measures are recommended to avoid, minimize, or mitigate such impacts in compliance

with applicable state, federal, and tribal regulations and policies.

Department of Comm erce

The Community Technical Assistance Program (CTAP) provides technical assistance tolocal governments, planning departments, private developers, non-profit organizations

and the public in order to encourage the planning and sustainable development of

Montana communities.

FEDERAL ENTITIESArm y Corps of Engineers - Under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, the Army

Corps of Engineers has permitting authority over the discharge of dredged and fill

materials into "waters of the US," including wetlands.

The Bureau of Land Managements (BLM) mission is sustaining the health,

diversity, and productivity of the public lands for the use and enjoyment of present and

future generations. The BLM is responsible for carrying out a variety of programs for the

management and conservation of multiple resources and uses, including energy and

minerals; timber; forage; recreation; wild horse and burro herds; fish and wildlife

habitat; wilderness areas; and archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites.

Environm ental Protection Agency(EPA) The EPA's major role in riparian


30/107

management decisions that sustain ecological systems and agricultural operations.

Agency goals include to: maintain high quality, productive soils; clean and abundant

water; healthy plant and animal communities; clean air; an adequate energy supply; and

working farm and ranch lands.

PRIVATE ENTITIESThere are numerous non-governmental organizations which play active roles as leaders

or participating partners in riparian protection statewide or at a community level. Their

riparian participation arises for several reasons. Among these are overlapping missions,

goals and values related to riparian health, management and protection. Or activities

undertaken by their members may draw them into the regulatory arena, requiring thatthey institute riparian BMPs at some cost. Given these differing motivations, we

challenge the organizations listed below to review the recommendations and action steps

that follow and consider whether and how each may apply to their organization and

membership. Several questions could then be asked to focus organizational time and

energy to positive endsinvolvement and action.

- Does this apply to our organization or membership? How? Why?- Does this recommendation or action step relate to members priority issues or

concerns? How so?

- Is there a role for our organization or membership to play in responding to thisrecommendation or action item? What might that role look like?

- Who could we partner with to address the recommendation and implement theaction step?

- What would we need to do it? How could we meet this need?- Do we have the time, energy, commitment or desire to do this?- What will happen to our organization and membership if we do nothing?- What will happen to riparian areas affected by our organization or memberships


31/107

The Nature Conservancy

Local or regional conservation groups

Land Trusts

Others

We offer the above list of potential leadership entities and the suggestions below as a

jumping off point for review, discussion and ongoing implementation activities to

advance Montanans riparian protection capacities far beyond the status quo. Our

exceptional riparian resources merit the best that we can bring to their protection. May

the recommendations and proposed action steps that follow be a starting point for

additional thought, discussion and refinement by all those whose care about Montanasvaluable riparian resources for future generations.

RECOMMENDATIONA: DEVELOP AND ENHANCE EDUCATION,OUTREACH

AND TECHNICALASSISTANCE

Educationmost people are willing and want to improve water quality and

stream bank stability and health but are looking for a nswers of how to or where

to start. --Listening Session Participant (Flathead)

Most landowners are motivated to do the right thing, but they need information

and resources to know what to do. Listening Session Participant (Bitterroot)

Education is probably the first thing to BMPs. BMPs will eliminate the need forstricter regulation. -- Listening Session Participant (Flathead)


32/107

3. That technical assistance, be it revegetation techniques, streambank sloping orallocation of grant monies to worthy riparian protection endeavors, use and

support the best available current technology.

Beyond these general principles, the base level starting points for education, outreach

and technical assistance are to know the audience, target the message and pick the best

possible messenger. More thought and analysis of these three factors before an

educational or outreach activity is undertaken will greatly increase the likelihood of a

successful outcome.

Know the Audience and Fit the Message to It. By way of example, this project

targeted many different audiences (sectors) at once. We aimed to obtain information on

riparian BMPs from diverse interests by listening to them. Our key message was: We

want to hear what best management practices you are using, or have learned from.

Implicit in this listening process was a largely unstated goal to simultaneously raise

public awarenessof riparian BMPs and of the varied groups and organizations that play

a role in riparian protection. The projects primary messenger, at the grassroots, was the

local CD co-sponsoring the sessions, which did the majority of the outreach to bring

people to the sessions. Once at the sessions, the facilitating voice was the outsideproject contractor representing the Montana Association of Conservation Districts.

What we encountered are the very things that effective education and outreach try to

avoid.

Every audience (sector) is actually comprised of many different sub-audiences. Take

agriculture, for example. There is no single agriculture audience. There are wool

growers, irrigators, stockmen, mint farmers, dude ranchers, non-resident ranchers, etc.

We tried to reach every sector with a message, and in the process we were only partiallysuccessful in reaching all the audiences we aimed to reach. The lesson from this is not a

new one, but nevertheless bears repeating. The less clearly defined the audience, the


33/107

people think of a heavily vegetated river bank in western Montana when they hear the

word riparian. So when they look at their own arid prairie landscape they conclude, We

have no riparian areas.

Before convening listening sessions in these areas, we could have more fully investigated

what problems, issues, day to day concerns and values would lead to actual riparian

protection by those who live there (our target audience). We failed to do this and used

terms that didnt speak to (and even put off) some of our intended target audience.

The Messenger Matters. Longstanding traditions may present challenges for

effectively reaching some audiences, making it necessary to take pains to find the

right messenger.

The old Code of the West is that nobody talks about what they are doing. I go

on properties and ask if they know that their neighbor tried this technique and

they dont. - Resource manager in southwest Montana (interviewed)

Tap the eloquence of ranchers & farmers who have instructive experiences to

share. Listening Session Participant (Helena)

Whats the best way to meet those reluctant agricultural landowners not inclined to

attend a listening session? The most obvious way would be to connect with those who

know and work with the target audience we want to reach. We need to tap their

knowledge and experience to find out what speaks to that audience, how best to deliver

the message and then do everything in our power to accomplish it. Every audience will

likely differ, so again, targeting should be the general rule. For the messenger, the simple

rule of thumb would be to pick someone who is respected and will be heard. And most of

us know an acceptable messenger when we see it:

I was told about Alan. He fixed my irrigation erosion problem right away.


34/107

-- Bitterroot Audubon member comments at the Helena Report Back session

Another project we did with the CD and a private contractor had my kids cut

about 2000 willow cuttings in 2 hours and the contractors took those and did acomplicated project with heavy equipment. . . All these educational things have

been resounding successes. Thanks to the Conservation District because they keepsupporting my students involvement. High School Science Teacher andListening Session Participant (Flathead)

The words above reaffirm what many watershed leaders and resource managers already

know. There is a continuing need for locally specific riparian protection education,

outreach, technical assistance, etc. Section III Riparian Protection Profiles provides

several excellent examples such as the BMP Management Practice Group Realtor

Workshop in Missoula and the Kalispell Stormwater BMP Workshops in Kalispell and

others. (See pages 87-97) These can be tremendously effective for they are rooted in

local opportunities and needs, develop organically, and are powered (at least in part) by

residents who are motivated by care for their home turf and/or personal interest.

Therefore, continuing support for local leadership, appropriate expertise, guidance,

technical information and funding, etc.should be perpetuated.

ACTION STEP 2: DEVELOP INNOVATIVE,POPULARMEDIAUSING CURRENT

TECHNOLOGY.Montanans need to take full advantage of current technology to more effectively reach

target audiences and the general public. These could and should include long and

short formats. Several ideas surfaced on ways to accomplish this:

15-30 second radio and television PSAs on riparian protection themes, based on asocial marketing approach directed at changing human behavior in riparian areas


35/107

Riparian BMP Webinars or Short Courses for targeted sectors or specific needs,perhaps identified through working group activities

RECOMMENDATION B: CREATE OPPORTUNITIES FORCOLLABORATIVE

PROBLEM-SOLVINGComplex problems in an interdependent world require many heads and hands to

effectively address. Section IIIs riparian BMP profiles offer many examples of the vital

role that partnerships play in instituting riparian protection. Another opportunity thatdid not pan out in this project but should be pursued would be to establish meaningful

communication with the land development and construction communitiesthe new

frontier this project failed to effectively reachto share information and work together

to develop effective riparian protection strategies for that sector. And there is a need to

better understand the permitting challenges that listening session participants described

and develop a process to address them. Action Steps 3, 4 and 5 are proposed below to

tackle these three needs.

ACTION STEP 3: IDENTIFYAND FORGEADDITIONAL PARTNERSHIPS.Riparian protection is not a simple task, it can be expensive and require trial and error

before success is achieved. Partnerships are, therefore, vital to successful riparian

protection, as illustrated by some of the riparian BMPs profiles in Section III. A short

list would include: the Haughian Ranch in Eastern Montana which partners with

NRCS (WHIP) and the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative; the Konen Family Farms

use of NRCS CRP and the 319 grant funding; the Laszlo familys restoration of ODellCreek accomplished with multiple partners; the Salish-Kootenai projects on the Little

Bitterroot; the Yellowstone River Parks Associations accomplishments as an entirely


36/107

Government Affairs Director for the Helena Association of Realtors. Another participant

at that session liked the idea, which led to the following suggestion.

The Governors Task Force for Riparian Protection should consideroutreach to the real estate/building industry trade associations in

Montana, to see if they would be interested in participating in a working

group aimed at compiling best management practices for development

near streams and other water bodies in Montana. Work with Mark

Simonich to see if he would help spearhead this. A working group would

include some riparian resource specialists, as well as builders and

Realtors. Unsure about funding requirements to pull this off. Results of

the working group process would be distributed through the trade

associations, included in Continuing Education workshops, and used as

the basis for an award/recognition program.

ACTION STEP 5: CLARIFYSPECIFIC PERMIT CHALLENGESAND IDENTIFYA

PROCESS TOADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES.

We need to clarify and simplify the rules and regulations to assistlandowners.-- Listening Session Participant (Missoula)

Several complaints surfaced during the listening sessions regarding lack of interagency

communication and coordination on permitting and regulatory requirements (state and

federal, e.g. Army Corps of Engineers streambank mitigation roles), loopholes,

inconsistent communications by Conservation Districts and others regarding permittingrequirement, and conflicting statutory mandates that seem to pit local riparian

protection against other priorities such as federal hydropower production and flood


37/107

RECOMMENDATION C: RESEARCH,ASSESS AND TRAIN FOREFFECTIVE

BMPS

What are you trying to do for what point in time for what riparian area for what

kind of manmade modification? Define the target. Is it wa ter quality? Flow?

Temperature? To level out the hydrograph? Sustain willows? Revegetate the

stream banks? --Listening Session Participant (Dillon).

One limitation of this project was that it did not do an extensive investigation into

effective models of riparian protection and riparian BMPs. We know they are out there,

but we dont have a good handle on what they are, nor how to systematically and more

meaningfully transfer them to those who need them.

Such a study would need to define criteria for what qualifies as effective. It could

inquire: What makes a given BMP effective? What factors led to success? Are there

characteristics of the sector implementing the BMP that help to make it work? Werethere triggering activities that created the conditions for an effective BMP model to be

instituted?

For example, Montanas integration of voluntary Forestry BMP program and the

regulatory Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Act were held up as the positive model

of riparian BMPs throughout this project. Could these be replicated by other sectors of

the population? How? Some raised the question whether or not they should be. A

practical suggestion from a participant at the Helena Report Back session might be onestarting point for this analysis.

h k f h ld k h


38/107

development, evaluation, redevelopment, and retesting necessary to obtain a final

model of effectiveness. In the

interim, there is considerable value in using collaboration, best available science and

adaptive management in the design, testing and implementation of riparian BMPs.

ACTION STEP 6: VALIDATE EFFECTIVE BMPSThe results of this project indicate there is a need to for a systematic and rigorous

evaluation to validate effective best management practices. Qualified individuals or

organizations (private and/or public) interested in undertaking this Action Step shouldbe obtained to, at minimum, develop criteria for evaluating effective BMPs, collect

representative BMPs to evaluate, and validate effective BMP practices. A review of

relevant current research would be an appropriate starting point. The analysis could

include some of the BMPs heard of anecdotally in this project, including the forestry

BMPs, but go beyond to investigate other BMPs relevant and comparable for use in

Montana. The goal would be to develop a methodology for validating effective BMPs, to

apply this methodology and to compile the results for use and distribution to appropriateaudiences in Montana.

ACTION STEP 7: IDENTIFYEFFECTIVE BMP MODELS FORREPLICABILITY.Ideally, this action step would be undertaken hand in hand with Action Step 6. This step

would include a review of relevant current research, identification of a wide array of

BMPs for possible replicability by different sectors, development and application of

criteria for assessing replicability, and analysis and selection of replicable models.

ACTION STEP 8: TRAIN RIPARIAN RESTORATION/PROTECTION

PROFESSIONALSAND DEVELOP STANDARDS FOR SYSTEMATIC


39/107

RECOMMENDATION D:UNDERSTAND AND MAXIMIZE THE ECONOMIC

BENEFITS OF PROTECTING RIPARIANAREAS

It is difficult to encourage riparian protection BMPs if they are, or are perceived as, an

expense that benefits the community at large but not the individual landowners bearing

the cost. Economic information about the costs and benefits of various measures should

be compiled, taking into account both short-term and long-term results in public andprivate settings. A review of the economic literature on riparian protection should be

undertaken, to better understand the documented connections between healthy riparian

areas and property values. Opportunities for streamlining incentive programs and

making BMPs as cost-efficient as possible should also be identified.

Such considerations should be integrated into the action steps associated with

Recommendations A, B and C. Whether its education/outreach/technical assistance(Recommendation A), opportunities for collaborative problem-solving

(Recommendation B), or research into better understanding what constitutes an

effective BMP (Recommendation C), the economic costs and benefits of riparian

protection practices should be taken into account, and opportunities for maximizing the

benefits and minimizing the costs in each case should be identified.

ACTION STEP 9: REVIEWECONOMIC LITERATUREAND INCENTIVE

PROGRAMS,AND PERFORM TECHNICAL COST-BENEFITANALYSIS FORPUBLICAND PRIVATE SETTINGS.S li it t f b th bli d i t t t th hi i f lifi d


40/107

Building on the outcomes of the preceding two action steps, a working group could be

formed to review and assess the feasibility of developing a field assessment tool to

facilitate cost-benefit assessment. This initiative could begin simply and informally by

focusing on one sectorsuch as agricultureand convening exploratory discussions toreview the products from Action Steps 9 and 10 and consider the utility and feasibility of

developing a field assessment tool. Should participants in this working group deem the

effort worthwhile, steps could then be taken to secure funding and develop an RFP to

create the tool.

OTHERPOSSIBLE NEXT STEPS

A number of additional possible next steps were identified at this projects inception bythe Governors Task Force on Riparian Protection. Since many of these have merit,

rather than lose them, we list them below. Those that also came up in the listening

sessions, focus groups, or Report Back meetings are noted with an asterisk (*).

*Riparian Best of the West educational materials in various media (print, web-based, DVD, television, etc), for distribution and instruction to streamside area

managers and the general public by federal/state/local government entities and

private sector *Subject matter for continuing education for professionals (e.g., Realtors, planners) Lead by example -- adoption of riparian BMPs by state agencies (also, federal and

local governments) for our own actions

Incorporation into local growth policies and local land use regulations Basis for incentive programs at local/state/federal level Material that could be included in protective covenants, conservation easements,

land and water stewardship plans and contracts, and construction documents andmining and extraction agreements where best management practices can be

specified


41/107

Provide specific BMPs for inclusion and conditions in permits such as 310s,construction permits and other activities that require state or local oversight.

Provide kernel of BMPs to build on for further improvement of riparian areas. Provide clear examples of proper BMPs for use in enforcement activities against

permittees who violate permit or contract conditions.

*Recommendations from diverse interests regarding needs, opportunities and nextsteps for increasing the use of BMPs

*Lessons Learned by all categories of interest to transfer to other settings orrelevant projects.

Identification of outstanding individuals, projects or organizations that could behighlighted in future outreach and recognition efforts.

*Discussion and planning for media and outreach strategies for furtherdissemination of BMPs.

Identification of areas and interests needing additional information, assistance,awareness-raising, etc. regarding BMPs

Expanded Conservation District role and leadership in riparian BMP promotion andassistance.


42/107

SECTION III: RIPARIAN PROTECTION PROFILES

INTRODUCTIONThis section focuses on different approaches to Montana riparian protection. It is a

sampling of different kinds of projects and processes that are being used to improve

streamsides and lakeshores throughout the state. Like the listening sessions, these

profiles are the products of listening to people explain how and why they are working to

protect these special areas.

The profiles are based on interviews. It is outside the purview of this report tosystematically evaluate the effectiveness of each approach for more general application.

That said, most of the management practices used in these cases have been permitted,

approved and sometimes evaluated by outside entities.

Some of the projects described are completed. Others are in the demonstration phase or

in the initiation phase. Some projects represent on-the-ground restoration or protection

of the stream or lakeside resources. Others are designed to encourage or build ability

and knowledge to undertake such projects. The interviewees candidly talked aboutgoals, triumphs and setbacks. Many have thoughts about what others might take from

them.

These are the stories of real Montanans, from landowners to nonprofit members and

state and federal agency managers, doing real work to protect riparian areas. Rather

than presenting some ideal approach, these show that riparian protection is complex and

a little messy. Views expressed and the reasons for action cover a broad range of

interests, priorities, resources, and understanding of the problems.

PROFILES


43/107

It s the W hole Place: Conservation in Dry Land MontanaEastern Montana

Terry Haughian thinks about grass and water the way a careful banker might think aboutcapital that needs to be carefully managed to continue to bear interest. Haughian and

his family have been dry land ranching north of Miles City since 1901. Theyve seen the

wet, the dry and everything in between.

The ranch runs from the Yellowstone River for miles north. There are small streams,

intermittent streams, coulees and draws where the water holds for a time. Haughian

says that riparian sounds like a kind of technical term to him; something possibly a bit

puzzling in eastern Montana. He says those wet spots need special consideration andcare wherever they are on the property.

No land is irrigated on his place. He and his family have developed reservoirs and pits

on the property to store water against the dry periods. A well supplies drinking water

and water for a storage and pipeline system for stock watering throughout the property.

Its a rugged area, with parts of it only accessible by four wheel drive or horse.

Haughian doesnt graze cattle down by the Yellowstone anymore. He notes thateveryones treated the Yellowstone like a garbage dump and it isnt acceptablethere are

more people downriver. He keeps his operations away from the river whenever possible.

For the past decade or

so, he has had his

property in the WHIP

program (Wildlife

Habitat Incentive

Program) with the

N t l R


44/107

Instead, the cattle have been given an elaborate system of piped water to twenty-six stock

tanks around the property. Haughian built a large, partially buried water storage tank at

the highest point of his property. He can store three to four days of water in that tank.

Then, hes installed miles of underground pipeline to the tanks placed around theproperty where he wants the cattle to water. He uses a pump to get the water up to the

storage tank from the house well, but everything else is gravity fed and can be directed

where he wants it on a timer.

Early on, he used 1.5 PVC pipe buried five and half to six feet deep, to avoid frost. Its

worked and he was careful to put in narrow trenches that could grow grass again quickly.

Dirt berms were installed to slow water while the grass grew in on areas near roads

where they could do it with the back fill. In the last five or six years, he used a new kind

of heavy-duty pipe that only needs to be buried three feet and could be installed via a rip-

in. The cut is small and the sod is laid back down afterward so that it is hard to see the

cut in places right after installation. The pipe is more expensive, but he thinks this is a

more efficient way to do it.

He likes the pipeline

system. While his isunique in its particulars,

he notes that all his

neighbors have installed

some kind of system in

recent years. But he isnt

willing to simply rely on

it. He keeps up the

existing reservoirs andwould like to add more

reservoirs and pits to keep


45/107

tanks, for birds and deer to get a drink. He hopes to fence one of his reservoirs for the

birds, allowing cattle in only when he really needs it.

He, like many ranchers in Montana, has BLM allotments. Some of the new regulationsfor grazing might be kind of rough, he says, but he figures theyre a fair trade-off for use

of the public allotments. Haughian is also a long-time participant in the Grazing Lands

Conservation Initiative which started in Bozeman in 1991 and now operates nationwide.

The Montana chapter has funded feedlot (AFO/CAFO) improvements, other projects

along rivers, good grazing management and promotes good grazing practices. He thinks

this approach, which is voluntary, has been a great way of working together to improve

conditions.

Haughian talked about his grandfather, who originally settled after buying a Civil War

scrip homestead, and about his children, who are still in school. Every experience has

taught him lessons about what the land needs. Even drought has some benefits, since

some grassland can get a rest and he says it shows where management can be improved.

Whether he is managing the land and water or the more traditional economic

considerations of a family ranch, he thinks it important to understand and live within his

means. His stewardship of the land is a link from past to future, and he seems bent onturning over the land to the next generation in better condition than how he received it.


46/107

One Solution Leads to Another: Kone n Family FarmCentral Montana

It all started with a problem with the irrigation system. Erosion was threatening todump Michael Konens irrigation pivot in the creek. He asked around to see who could

help him solve his problem and came up with the name of Alan Rollo, watershed

coordinator for the Sun River Watershed Group.

Alan Rollo was able to help him find the solution he needed to solve his irrigation

problem pretty quicklya simple fix that involved putting on an end cap to stop water

from spraying the bank, then building a couple of barbs and shoring up the bank. But

Rollo pointed out that Konen had an erosion problem all the way down the bank of hislittle, unnamed tributary to Muddy Creek. Conversation and working with the Natural

Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) led to a new idea: the riparian area could be

restored and Konen could have a forest along its banksa luxury on the Fairfield Bench.

Konen envisioned his kids playing in the forest of riparian shrubbery. Even his dad was

excited about the idea.

In 2004, the six-year attempt to grow the forest began, under the NRCS Riparian

Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) program. First, Konen constructed a fence,

fencing eleven acres in total along half mile of creek. This equals about a 100-150 foot

buffer. The fence was

expensivea high tensile affair

with two strands of electrified

fence and a ground wire in the

middle. It was suggested by

NRCS and Konen felt he had tofollow their BMPs, even though it

required different materials than


47/107

rocky mountain juniper. Then they died. Overall, he estimated that he had 90%

mortality. He noted that 100% of the cottonwoods died, but some, like the buffalo berry

and juniper, did all right when irrigated from above.

Irrigation was a continual problem. The trees couldnt get established without it and he

couldnt find good ways to get most of the area irrigated. He tried a 1500 gallon tank

from his truck, but that didnt go far. He tried contour ditching later that did help,

though he wished he had used more black plastic in it. In all, he tried irrigating for three

to four years, but nothing worked very well. NRCS asked him to try planting more trees

in 2008 and 2009 and he did, for an estimated total of 4,000 trees. This entire process

was stressful and time consuming.

Though the tree survival rate was dismal, the native grasses sprung back along the creek

and stabilized the banks. This was accomplished solely through fencing and excluding

stock. It appeared that a grassy riparian area was the practical solution for the site.

Funding for this project was provided through NRCS and Department of Environmental

Quality 319 funds. Volunteers did the planting with Konen, and he devoted countless

hours to trying to maintain the plantings. He also found that he now needs to spray

weeds in the riparian area because no grazing is allowed and the weeds are not eaten.Still, the funding NRCS provided outstrips what he would have received through use of

the land for grazing.

Konen hasnt been able to grow the forest, though he does appreciate the thriving grassy

area next to the creek and the fact that it is easy to see reduced erosion and sediment

loading into the stream. The watershed has gained by further reductions in sediment

into Muddy Creek which flows into the Sun River. Its also gained in another important

way: today, Michael Konen sits on the Executive Committee of the Sun Watershed

Group, working to further improve the watershed.


48/107


49/107

order to be successful, maintenance and monitoring of the riparian area has been

necessary and continuous. This project was done with Forest Restoration consultants,

the Flathead Lakers and Montana, Fish, Wildlife and Parks in 2008. So far, the banks

have held and the plants are growing well.

Zone 2 provided another type of challenge. Seabaugh tried precision placed small gravel

(3 or less) at the full pool waterline. The small gravel had some advantages because it is

relatively cheap and little material was needed. Accurate placement was difficult, the

matting behind it wasnt effective, and it eroded because the force of the boat wakes was

underestimated. So, they ended up doing a large rock toe, similar to what was done in

Zone 1. It seems to be working, but theyd already completed riparian planting on the

bank so it was difficult to position the rocks.

Along the way, he worked his way through a catalog of methods: logs cabled down at the

water level, coconut fiber bundles and mats, big rocks, little rocks, bank sloping and

various revegetation methods. Things work for a while, but anything that can rot, float

away, or be undercut eventually is. After temporary measures such as the coconut fiber

bundles decomposed, the bank was undercut once again. Over time, Seabaugh has

become convinced that a strong toe is needed, but bank sloping and riparian plantings

can work well for the stream banks.

It wasnt easy getting vegetation established. The soil is very sandy and topsoil was

spread very thinly over the newly sloped banks. Furthermore, the higher summer water

levels, when Flathead Lake water levels are kept high, keep the soils saturated during the

growing season and can make it difficult for plants to establish. Higher up, the plant

roots have difficulty reaching the

water table. Irrigation has beennecessary and drip irrigation from the

top seems to work best. Its been


50/107

up electric Gallagher fencing up high which has worked well. Trouble also comes from

below as mice creep through the grass and girdle trees with their nibblinghe has

needed to put poison out and has tried various tree guards. He noted that it does seem a

bit dumb that he has to do so much to keep wildlife out when one of the objectives is toenhance wildlife habitat, but the long-term goal wont be met if the vegetation cant make

it to maturity.

Over the years, the permitting process has gotten more expensive and the costs of the

BMPs have risen dramatically, according to Seabaugh. He thinks the value of working

together for the river, since it all fits together and he has been active on the Flathead

County River Commission, but he also sees that the trend toward more complex

permitting and more expensive BMPs may keep others on the river from pursuing

projects like those hes done. He said he would have liked to do some projects in more

phases, but was advised against it, since he would have to get new permits for each

phase, which would add to the expense. Hed like to see more effort put into developing

taking the pulse of riparian protection in montana

Documents