have caused substantial water quality degradation. In ad- 

 dition, 133 polluting mine operations have been iden- 

 tified. The inventory points out that 50 percent or more of 

 these sediment problems could have been avoided if pro- 

 per conservation practices had been used (DHES 1979). 



A profile of one stream identified by a conservation 

 district as a water quality problem is Prickly Pear Creek in 

 Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Valley CDs (Lewis and Clark 

 CD 1979, Jefferson Valley CD 1980). Briefly, the problems 

 identified on the Prickly Pear are due to hard rock mining 

 in the upper tributaries which has discharged heavy 

 metals into the creek. Placer mining along the mainstem 

 above East Helena has altered the channel and caused 

 sedimentation; also highway and railroad construction 

 has resulted in numerous channel changes. Some major 

 industries are affecting the water quality of the creek. 

 Water withdrawal for irrigation below East Helena has fre- 

 quently dried up the stream. Sand and gravel operations, 

 suburban growth, agricultural practices, and other ac- 

 tivities have damaged the riparian zone below East 

 Helena. The cities of Helena and East Helena both 

 discharge partially-treated sewage to the stream. The 

 Prickly Pear has been found by the Water Quality Bureau 

 to be one of the poorest quality streams in southwestern 

 Montana (DHES 1980). 



Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Valley conservation 

 districts are (through their water quality management pro- 

 grams) jointly working on a project with water quality 

 agencies and interest groups to clean up the Prickly Pear. 



problems are to be solved on the local level, the 

 conservation districts w/7/ need the active support 

 of vi/ater quality agencies and the state legislature. 



Concerns 



Montana's major water quality problems 

 originate from nonpoint sources. The most serious 

 of these problems result from irrigation dewatering 

 and return flows, saline seeps, sediment carrying 

 chemical and biological pollutants from 

 agricultural activities, urban and storm runoff, log- 

 ging, and mining. The conservation districts have 

 identified their most severe water quality problems 

 in their water quality management plans. If these 



Objectives 



A) To improve water quality the CDD will 

 accept 6 CD water quality management proposals 

 to be funded for preparing feasibility studies, fun- 

 ding proposals, and other project planning ac- 

 tivities. The CDD will work with the Department 

 of Health and Environmental Sciences (DHES) to 

 carry out this objective. See Part A, Objective 1 7 of 

 the Work Plan. 



Rationale: The CDs have identified water 

 quality problems in their water quality manage- 

 ment plans. Several of these problems are severe 

 enough to warrant special attention. Project pro- 

 posals will allow the CDs to obtain funding 

 assistance. 



B) To improve water quality the CDD will 

 assist CDs to secure funding for water quality pro- 

 jects. See Part A, Objective 18 of the Work Plan. 



Rationale: CDs will need funding assistance 

 to solve their water quality problems. 



C) To identify water quality problems on 

 streams that require inventories according to CDs 

 water quality management plans. The CDD will 

 request the SCS, DHES, and the Department of 

 Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to give accelerated 

 assistance to these stream inventories. See Part B, 

 Objective 42 of the Work Plan. 



Rationale: These CDs have not been able to 

 identify problems on a site-specific basis in their 

 districts because the problems are too complex. A 

 stream inventory is needed to pinpoint these 

 diverse problems and provide data for requests of 

 funding from public assistance programs. 



21 



