DOCSLIB.ORG

Yaak River Watershed Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Yaak River Watershed Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads Yaak River Watershed Sediment Total Maximum Daily Loads Montana Department of Environmental Quality September 10, 2008 Yaak River Watershed Sediment TMDL – Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1.0 Introduction & Executive Summary ........................................................................... 1 1.1 Background and Purpose ...................................................................................................... 1 1.2 The TMDL Planning Process ............................................................................................... 1 1.3 Yaak Watershed TMDLs: Executive Summary ................................................................... 2 Section 2.0 Watershed Characterization......................................................................................... 5 2.1 Physical Characteristics ........................................................................................................ 5 2.1.1 Location and Ecoregion ................................................................................................. 5 2.1.2 Topography .................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.3 Climate........................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 Hydrology ...................................................................................................................... 6 2.1.5 Geology and Soils.......................................................................................................... 9 2.1.6 Land Use and Land Cover ........................................................................................... 10 2.2 Biological Characteristics................................................................................................... 10 2.2.1 Fisheries and Associated Aquatic ................................................................................ 10 2.2.2 Threatened and Endangered Species (and Species of Special Concern) ..................... 14 2.3 Cultural Characteristics....................................................................................................... 15 2.3.1 Population and Land Use History ................................................................................ 15 2.3.2 Land Use and Ownership............................................................................................. 17 2.3.3 Recreation .................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.4 Resource Management................................................................................................. 17 Section 3.0 TMDL Regulatory Framework and Water Quality Standards.................................. 19 3.1 TMDL Regulatory Requirements ....................................................................................... 19 3.2 Water Bodies and Pollutants of Concern............................................................................ 20 3.3 Applicable Water Quality Standards .................................................................................. 24 3.3.1 Classification and Beneficial Uses............................................................................... 25 3.3.2 Standards...................................................................................................................... 25 Section 4.0 Water Quality Assessment........................................................................................ 27 4.1 Water Quality Assessment Framework .............................................................................. 27 4.2 Sediment Impairment Indicators......................................................................................... 29 4.2.1 Reference Condition .................................................................................................... 30 4.2.2 In-Stream Sediment Indicators..................................................................................... 31 4.2.3 Biological Indicators.................................................................................................... 38 4.2.4 Landscape-Scale Sediment Indicators ......................................................................... 40 4.2.5 Additional/Supplemental Information ......................................................................... 42 4.3 Water Quality Impairment Summary ................................................................................. 43 4.3.1 Seventeenmile Creek ................................................................................................... 43 4.3.2 Lap Creek..................................................................................................................... 53 4.3.3 South Fork Yaak River ................................................................................................ 62 Section 5.0 Yaak TPA Sediment Source Characterization and Assessment ............................... 75 5.1 Sediment Source Assessment and Load Estimates Summary ............................................ 75 5.1.1 Natural Sources............................................................................................................ 75 5.1.2 Anthropogenic Sources................................................................................................ 75 5.1.3 Source Assessment Summary ...................................................................................... 76 5.2 Sediment Source Assessment and Loading Estimates........................................................ 77 5.2.1 Sediment Sources......................................................................................................... 77 10/8/2008 i Yaak River Watershed Sediment TMDL – Table of Contents Section 6.0 Total Maximum Daily Load & Load Allocations..................................................... 95 6.1 Total Maximum Daily Load ............................................................................................... 95 6.2 Load Allocations................................................................................................................. 96 6.2.1 Forest Roads Allocation............................................................................................... 98 6.2.2 Upland Erosion from Management Activities Allocation ........................................... 99 6.2.3 Bank Erosion & Mass Wasting/Hillslope Failure Allocation.................................... 100 6.2.4 Future Development Allocation................................................................................. 101 6.3 Margin of Safety ............................................................................................................... 101 6.4 Seasonality........................................................................................................................ 102 6.5 Uncertainty and Adaptive Management ........................................................................... 102 6.6 Total Maximum Daily Loading Expression ..................................................................... 103 Section 7.0 TMDL Implementation and Monitoring................................................................. 105 7.1 TMDL Implementation and Monitoring Framework ....................................................... 105 7.2 Agency and Stakeholder Coordination............................................................................. 106 7.3 Implementation Strategies and Recommendations........................................................... 107 7.3.1 Forest Roads & Culverts............................................................................................ 107 7.3.2 Additional Implementation Recommendations ......................................................... 108 7.4 Monitoring Recommendations ......................................................................................... 109 7.4.1 Water Quality Target Monitoring & Evaluation........................................................ 109 7.4.2 Implementation and Restoration Monitoring & Evaluation ...................................... 111 Section 8.0 Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 113 Section 9.0 References and Acronyms ...................................................................................... 115 References............................................................................................................................... 115 Acronyms................................................................................................................................ 123 10/8/2008 ii Yaak River Watershed Sediment TMDL – Table of Contents Table of Tables Table 1-1. Water Quality Plan and TMDL Summary Information ................................................ 3 Table 2-1. Land use/cover in Yaak River Watershed................................................................... 10 Table 2-2. Species and relative abundance for the Yaak River .................................................... 12 Table 2-3. Species and relative abundance for 303(d) Listed streams in the Yaak River Watershed ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 2-4. Yaak Watershed Species of Concern .......................................................................... 14 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Guide to Rural Living in Northwest Montana
    A guide to rural living in northwest Montana Lincoln Conservation District PO Box 2170 949 US Highway 93 North Eureka, Montana 59917-2170 Phone (406) 297-2233 • Fax (406) 296-7188 www.lincolncd.org Provided by: [email protected] Lincoln Conservation District Lincoln County Area Map British Columbia West Northwest Kootenai Ten Peak Lakes )"92 !( !( Eureka Rexford Tob Scenic Scenic ac c o R Area Area ive Yaak r £93 # Koocanusa Bridge [ )"508 # D i c k e y Fortine L a k e # # Sylvanite Trego # Stryker - W < Y ¬37 -- a « Bo )"567 L h n a n i e t rs k a Fer e r R y k f - i v i e s e h r - K - > o o c [£2 a n u )"36 n s te a Koo ai River Troy !( Idaho Libby Dam !( C Libby a F i b s i h n e r e F R 56 t i «¬ s M i h v e e r B u l l o r R L a k e u i Ross n v e t r Creek a R i o - n a Cedars M s d T H W w [£2 i y l 2 d 0 e 0 r - n - > e s #Happy's Inn s T h o m p s o n alispell--> I L a k e s -K Legend # Unincorporated Towns !( Incorporated Towns Rivers/Streams Highways/Roads 5 0 5 10 15 20 Miles Lincoln County Introduction Welcome to Lincoln County . 3 Rural Living Handbook Lincoln County Facts .
    [Show full text]
  • Libby, Montana
    NORTHWEST GEOLOGY The Journal of The Tobacco Root Geological Society Volume 35, 2006 31st Annual Field Conference Libby, Montana August 3-6, 2006 Published by The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. P.O. Box 2734 Missoula, Montana 59806 http://trgs.org Edited by: Richard I. Gibson and Robert C. Thomas Cover: Miners, Snowshoe Gulch, 1897. From Mrs. Sam Ratekin and Spokane Statesman-Review, 1959. Above: Cross section based on gravity modeling. From M.D. Kleinkopf, Geophysical Interpretations of the Libby Thrust Belt, U.S.G.S. Prof. Paper 1546, 1997. The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. P.O. Box 2734 Missoula, Montana 59806 Officers, 2006: President: Larry Smith, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte Vice-President: James Sears, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Montana, Missoula Secretary-Treasurer: George Furniss, MT Dept. of Environmental Quality, Helena Corresponding Secretary: Emily Geraghty, Dept. of Geology, Univ. of Montana, Missoula Webmaster: Dick Gibson Board of Directors, 2006: Richard B. Berg, Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Butte, MT Bruce E. Cox, Stillwater Mining Co., Nye, MT Marie Marshall Garsjo, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ft. Worth, TX Richard I. Gibson, Gibson Consulting, Butte, MT Larry Johnson, Consultant, Missoula, MT Robert C. Thomas, Dept. of Environmental Sciences, U. of Montana-Western, Dillon, MT Conference Organizers, Libby Field Conference: Bruce E. Cox, Stillwater Mining Co., Nye, MT Marie Marshall Garsjo, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Ft. Worth, TX Ann Marie Gooden, Libby, MT ISSN: 0096-7769 © 2006 The Tobacco Root Geological Society, Inc. http://trgs.org ii NORTHWEST GEOLOGY The Journal of The Tobacco Root Geological Society Volume 35, 2006 Libby Field Conference Table of Contents Author Page Title Montana DEQ 1 Libby District Historical Mine Narrative Art Montana 11 The Rainy Creek alkaline ultramafic igneous complex near Libby, MT Montana DEQ 17 Rainy Creek Historical Mine Narrative Derek L.
    [Show full text]
  • Sediment Characteristics and Transport in the Kootenai River White Sturgeon Critical Habitat Near Bonners Ferry, Idaho
    Prepared in cooperation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Sediment Characteristics and Transport in the Kootenai River White Sturgeon Critical Habitat near Bonners Ferry, Idaho Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5228 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Kootenai River below Moyie River at river kilometer 257.41 looking upstream towards the left bank. (Photograph taken by Robert J. Kasun, Wildland Hydrology, May 2008) Sediment Characteristics and Transport in the Kootenai River White Sturgeon Critical Habitat near Bonners Ferry, Idaho By Ryan L. Fosness and Marshall L. Williams Prepared in cooperation with the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5228 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Suzette M. Kimball, Acting Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2009 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Fosness, R.L., and Williams, M.L., 2009, Sediment characteristics and transport in the Kootenai River white sturgeon critical habitat near Bonners Ferry, Idaho: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery 2016 Research and Monitoring Progress Report
    CABINET-YAAK GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2016 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, ALEX WELANDER, MICHAEL PROCTOR, AND HILARY COOLEY 2017 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 This annual report is cumulative and represents data collected since the inception of this monitoring program in 1983. New information collected or made available to this study is incorporated, reanalyzed, and summarized annually. Information in this report supersedes previous reports. Please obtain permission prior to citation. Cite this report as follows: Kasworm, W. F., T. G. Radandt, J.E. Teisberg, A. Welander, M. Proctor, and H. Cooley. 2017. Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery area 2016 research and monitoring progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 101 pp. ABSTRACT Sixteen grizzly bears were monitored with radio collars during portions of 2016. Research monitoring included seven females (three adults and four subadults) and nine males (five adults and four subadults) in the Cabinet-Yaak ecosystem (CYE). Two bears of these bears were from the Cabinet Mountains (1 subadult male and 1 subadult female) and part of the augmentation program. Grizzly bear monitoring and research has been ongoing in the Cabinet Mountains since 1988 and in the Yaak River since 1986. Sixty-eight resident bears have been captured and monitored through telemetry in the two areas from 1986-2016. Research in the Cabinet Mountains indicated that only a small population remained as of 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • Moose-Habitat Relationships in the Yaak River Drainage Northwestern Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1985 Moose-habitat relationships in the Yaak River drainage northwestern Montana Marc R. Matchett The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Matchett, Marc R., "Moose-habitat relationships in the Yaak River drainage northwestern Montana" (1985). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 7378. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/7378 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1976 Th is is an unpublished manuscript in which copyright sub­ s is t s. Any further r eprinting of its contents must be approved BY the author. MANSFIELD L ibrary Un iv er s ity of Montana Date ; 1 ^ 8 5 _______ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. MOOSE-HABITAT RELATIONSHIPS IN THE ÏAAK RIVER DRAINAGE, NORTHWESTERN MONTANA by Marc R. Hatchett B.S. University of Montana, 1980 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science University of Montana 1985 Approved by; c : - ; / , / / , Chairman, Board1 of/Examinerso f V E x a Dean, Graduate School /Sl/ Ù?/y :>' Date Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2019 Research and Monitoring Progress Report
    CABINET-YAAK GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2019 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, TYLER VENT, ALEX WELANDER, MICHAEL PROCTOR, HILARY COOLEY, AND JENNIFER FORTIN-NOREUS 2020 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 This annual report is cumulative and represents data collected, reanalyzed and summarized annually since the inception of this monitoring program in 1983. Information in this report supersedes previous reports. Please obtain permission prior to citation. Cite as follows: Kasworm, W. F., T. G. Radandt, J. E. Teisberg, T. Vent, A. Welander, M. Proctor, H. Cooley and J. Fortin-Noreus. 2020. Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery area 2019 research and monitoring progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 105 pp. ABSTRACT Twelve grizzly bears were monitored with radio-collars during portions of 2019. Research monitoring included four females (two adults and two subadults) and eight males (three adult and five subadults) in the Cabinet-Yaak Ecosystem (CYE). Two subadult males and a subadult female were from the Cabinet Mountains augmentation program. One adult male bear was collared for conflict management purposes. Grizzly bear monitoring and research has been ongoing in the Cabinet Mountains since 1983 and in the Yaak River since 1986. Eighty-one resident bears were captured and monitored through telemetry in the two areas from 1983–2019. Research in the Cabinet Mountains indicated that only a small population remained as of 1988. Concern over persistence of grizzly bear populations within this area resulted in a pilot program in 1990 that tested population augmentation techniques.
    [Show full text]
  • Ch1 Overview
    5 HUC/UNIT CLASSIFICATION 5.1 Aquatic Systems 5.1.1 Methods To help us classify 6th field HUCs within the subbasin according to the degree to which each area has been modified and its potential for restoration, we used a spreadsheet tool called Qualitative Habitat Assessment (QHA). Dr. Chip McConnaha of Mobrand Biometrics and Drew Parkin, a private consultant contracted at the time with the Northwest Power and Conservation Council, designed and built QHA specifically in response to requests from the Kootenai and Flathead Subbasin Coordinators. Developed principally for resident salmonids in stream environments, QHA provides a means of capturing, in a systematic For a more detailed description and consistent way, aquatic-habitat information. It is a mechanism for objectively of QHA and how it works, go and transparently combining opinions from multiple scientists (in our case twenty to Appendix 85. biologists and hydrologists). Dr. Paul Anders and Dr. McConnaha, also constructed a lacustrine or lake version of QHA, called LQHA. It works like the stream version, but uses habitat attributes appropriate to lentic environments. QHA habitat attribute scores We used LQHA to assess selected lakes (table 5.1) within the subbasin (lakes that are in Appendices 32 and 33. the Technical Team could foresee doing BPA-related management actions on in the future). Both tools use a hypothesis developed by our Technical Team to characterize the relationship between a fish population and its habitat. Both provide an indication of the relative restoration and protection value for each Appendix 7 is an electronic HUC-6 or lake with respect to a focal species.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2013 Research and Monitoring Progress Report
    CABINET-YAAK GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2013 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, MICHAEL PROCTOR, AND CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN 2014 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 Information contained in this report is preliminary and subject to change. Please obtain permission prior to citation. Please cite this report as following: Kasworm, W. F., T. G. Radandt, J.E. Teisberg, M. Proctor, and C. Servheen. 2014. Cabinet-Yaak grizzly bear recovery area 2013 research and monitoring progress report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Missoula, Montana. 110 pp. Abstract: Grizzly bear research in the Cabinet Mountains indicated that only a small population remained as of 1988. Concern over persistence of grizzly bear populations within this area resulted in a pilot program in 1990 that tested population augmentation techniques. Four subadult female bears with no history of conflicts with humans were captured in southeast British Columbia and moved to the Cabinet Mountains for release during 1990–94. Three of four transplanted bears remained within the target area for at least one year. Hair snag sampling and DNA analysis during 2002–12 identified one of the original transplanted bears. The animal was a 2 year-old female when released in 1993. Genetic analysis also identified at least 9 first generation offspring and 8 second generation offspring from this individual. The success of the augmentation test program prompted additional augmentation in cooperation with Montana Fish Wildlife and Parks.
    [Show full text]
  • Department of the Interior United States Geological
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR MISCELLANEOUS FIELD STUDIES UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP MF-1534-D PAMPHLET MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL OF THE MOUNT HENRY ROADLESS AREA, LINCOLN COUNTY, MONTANA By R. E. Van Loenen, D. F. Siems, and Viki Bankey U.S. Geological Survey and M. D. Conyac, U.S. Bureau of Mines STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, September 3, 1964) and related acts, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines have been conducting mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilderness," "wild," or "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System, and some of them are presently being studied. The act provided that areas under consideration for wilderness designation should be studied for suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. The act directs that the results of such surveys are to be made available to the public and be submitted to the President and the Congress. This report discusses the results of a mineral survey of the Mount Henry Roadless Area (U.S. Forest Service area 01666), Kootenai National Forest, Lincoln County, Montana. The area was proposed for study by the Montana Wilderness Study Bill, April 1976. MINERAL RESOURCE POTENTIAL SUMMARY STATEMENT A small area located along the southwest boundary of the roadless area was identified as having a low mineral resource potential for copper and silver. Two formations present within the area contain economic deposits elsewhere in the Belt basin: the Prichard Formation near Kimberley, British Columbia, 60 mi to the north, is host for major lead-zinc deposits exploited by the Sullivan mine, and the Revett Formation in the Spar Lake district 55 mi to the south contains copper and silver deposits.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet-Yaak Wildlife Corridors
    Great Migrations and Crucial Corridors Initiative Focal Linkage: Cabinet-Yaak Wildlife Corridors A 10-year Business Plan for the Conservation of the Cabinet-Yaak Wildlife Corridors November 2012 (updated from March 2010 draft) Photos: brown bear by J. Scarrow, Troy project lands courtesy Trust for Public Land, elk by C. Vynne What is a business plan? A business plan serves two broad, primary functions. First, it provides specific information to those (e.g., prospective investors) not familiar with the proposed or existing business, including its goals, the management strategy and financial and other resources necessary to attain those goals. Second, a business plan provides internal guidance to those who are active in the operation of the business, allowing all individuals to understand the direction and path of the business. The plan helps keep the business from drifting away from its goals and key actions through careful articulation of a strategy. In the context of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s conservation efforts, business plans represent the strategies necessary to meet the conservation goals of the Keystone Initiative. Each business plan emphasizes the type(s) and magnitude(s) of the benefits that will be realized through the Initiative, the monetary costs involved, and the potential obstacles (risks) to achieving those gains. Each of the Foundation’s business plans has three core elements: Conservation Outcomes: A concrete description of the outcomes to which the Foundation and grantees will hold ourselves accountable. Implementation Plan with Strategic Priorities and Performance Measures: A description of the specific strategies that are needed to achieve our conservation outcomes and quantifiable benchmarks by which we will measure success and make it possible to adaptively manage in the face of unexpected or unintended outcomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Black Ram Project Objection, Kootenai National Forest
    November 13, 2020 Objection Reviewing Officer USDA Forest Service, Northern Region 26 Fort Missoula Road Missoula, MT 59804 Email: [email protected] Re: OBJECTIONS Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 218.8 to Black Ram Project, Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest Dear Reviewing Office: The Center for Biological Diversity (“the Center”) and WildEarth Guardians (“Guardians”), collectively “Objectors,” hereby submit these objections to the Kootenai National Forest’s Draft Decision Notice, Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) and final environmental assessment (Final EA) for the Black Ram Project. Project Objected To Pursuant to 36 C.F.R. § 218.8(d)(4), I object to the following project: Project: Black Ram Project, Three River Ranger District, Lincoln County, Montana Responsible Official and Forest/Ranger District: Kirsten Kaiser, District Ranger, Three Rivers Ranger District, Kootenai National Forest Timeliness These objections are timely filed. Notice of the Draft Decision Notice and FONSI was published in the Missoulian (the newspaper of record) on September 29, 2020. The deadline to submit objections is thus November 13, 2020. Lead Objector As required by 36 C.F.R. § 218.8(d)(3), the Objectors designate the “Lead Objector” as follows: 1 Edward B. (Ted) Zukoski, Senior Attorney Center for Biological Diversity 1536 Wynkoop Street, Suite 421 Denver, CO 80202 (303) 641-3149 [email protected] Interests and Participation of the Objectors The Center for Biological Diversity is a non-profit environmental organization with more than 81,000 members, and 1.7 million members and online activists nationwide who value wilderness, biodiversity, old growth forests, and the threatened and endangered species which occur on America’s spectacular public lands and waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology of the NW 15-Minute Ural Quadrangle Lincoln Co. Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1961 Geology of the NW 15-minute Ural Quadrangle Lincoln Co. Montana Arthur W. Shelden The University of Montana Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Shelden, Arthur W., "Geology of the NW 15-minute Ural Quadrangle Lincoln Co. Montana" (1961). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6079. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6079 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. GEOLOGY OF THE NW 15-MINUTE URAL QUADRANGLE, LINCOLN CO., MONTANA by Arthur W. Shelden A THESIS J Submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Applied Science at Montana State College Approved : Head, Major Department Chairman, Examining Committee Dean, Graduate Division Bozeman, Montana May 1961 UMI Number: EP36880 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT OiSMrtadtkxt F\<bli«Nng UMI EP36880 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013).
    [Show full text]