DOCSLIB.ORG

Hydrology Design Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION Upstream of Cold Creek Rd. Bridge, 9/18/14 Hydrology Design Report Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study Missoula County, MT By the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation May 2015 Hydrology Design Report, Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study May 2015 HYDROLOGY DESIGN REPORT SWAN RIVER Missoula County, MT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 LiDAR Collection ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Watershed Description ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Effective FIS (Flood Insurance Study) Hydrology .......................................................................... 2 1.4 Historic Data .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Stream Gage Analyses ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Systematic Estimation ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Two Station Comparison & MOVE.1 ..................................................................................... 7 2.1.3 Regional Regression Equations ............................................................................................. 8 2.1.4 Weighted Estimation ............................................................................................................ 9 2.1.5 Results Comparison ............................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Transfer to Ungaged Sites ........................................................................................................... 12 2.2.1 Streamflow Change Locations ............................................................................................. 12 2.2.2 Log Interpolation between 2 Gages .................................................................................... 14 3.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS SUMMARY & SELECTED DISCHARGES ................................................ 15 List of Tables Table 1: Flathead & Lake County Effective Floodplain Studies .................................................................... 2 Table 2: Peak Flows used in Effective Studies .............................................................................................. 3 Table 3: Highest Peaks Recorded at Swan River Stream Gages ................................................................... 5 Table 4: Stream Gage Summary Table ......................................................................................................... 6 Table 5: Stream Gage Analysis Results ‐ Systematic .................................................................................... 7 Table 6: Record Extension Methods Discharge Estimates ‐ Stream Gage No. 12369200 ........................... 8 Table 7: Regression Equation Estimates ‐ Stream Gage No. 12369200 ....................................................... 8 Table 8: Weighted Estimates ‐ Stream Gage No. 12369200 ........................................................................ 9 Table 9: Flood Discharge Estimates at USGS Gage 12369200 ................................................................... 10 Table 10: Gage 12370000 Trending Analysis Comparison ......................................................................... 11 Table 11: Hydraulic Model Stream Reaches .............................................................................................. 14 i Hydrology Design Report, Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study May 2015 Table 12: Log Interpolation between 2 Gages .......................................................................................... 15 Table 13: Selected Discharge Estimates ..................................................................................................... 15 List of Figures Figure 1: Study Reach Site Map ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 2: Flood Discharge Estimates at USGS Gage 12369200 .................................................................. 10 Figure 3: Drainage Basin Area .................................................................................................................... 13 Appendices Appendix A: USGS Stream Gage Data Appendix B: Hydrologic Calculations ii Hydrology Design Report, Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study May 2015 1.0 INTRODUCTION As part of the Missoula County Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) (Reference 9) Agreement activities, DNRC is assisting Missoula County to complete a new detailed riverine floodplain study, with floodway, for a section of the Swan River beginning at the Lake/Missoula County boundary and extending approximately 19.1 miles upstream near the Beaver Creek confluence. Per the MOU, DNRC has completed a new hydrologic analysis to be utilized for the new study. The study reach is currently mapped by FEMA using approximate methods. This study will be completed satisfying current state and FEMA standards for Detailed/Enhanced floodplain studies. A Flood Insurance Study (FIS) has been completed for Missoula County and Incorporated Areas dated August 16, 1988; however, an update to the FIS has been completed and is slated to become effective on July 6, 2015. A summary of the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) panels covering this study reach is presented below (Reference 2): Community Community No. FIRM Panels Effective Date Missoula County, MT 300048 30063C0200D 30063C0075D 08/16/1988 30063C0050D 30063C0200E 30063C0075E 07/06/2015 30063C0050E This report summarizes the hydrologic analysis and results for the new detailed study stream reach described. The new study includes hydrologic analysis to estimate the 10-, 4-, 2-, 1-, and 0.2 percent-annual-chance flood discharges for the Swan River. 1.1 LiDAR Collection In 2012, Missoula County contracted with Watershed Sciences, Inc. to collect Light Detection And Ranging (LiDAR) data for four areas of interest for the purpose of supporting floodplain mapping projects: 1. Rock Creek floodplain, 2. Bitterroot River floodplain, 3. Swan River floodplain, and 4. Clearwater River floodplain. Accuracy of the topographic data meets FEMA standards for detailed level floodplain mapping. The LiDAR data covers the project reach for this study. 1.2 Watershed Description The Swan River originates from Gray Wolf Lake in the Mission Mountain Range and flows generally in a northwesterly direction before emptying into Flathead Lake at the town of Bigfork. 1 Hydrology Design Report, Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study May 2015 At its mouth, the river drains a watershed area of approximately 723 square miles. The Swan River valley bottom was formed by glacial melt waters and reworked by fluvial processes. The valley is bounded on the east by the Swan Mountain Range and on the west by the Mission Range. The vegetation in the valley is dominated by subalpine firs with slopes ranging from 0 to 20 percent. 1.3 Effective FIS (Flood Insurance Study) Hydrology The effective floodplain mapping for the Swan River in Missoula County stretches from the Lake County boundary upstream to the Beaver Creek confluence, which matches the extents of the study at hand. The level of detail of the effective mapping is approximate, as it has been carried forward from the historic flood hazard boundary maps (FHBMs) developed in the 1970s. In Flathead and Lake Counties, the Swan River floodplain has both approximate level and detailed level mapping; information about the effective detailed studies is shown in Table 1. Table 1: Flathead & Lake County Effective Floodplain Studies Approx. Effective Level of Author Study Title County Length Description Date Detail (mi) Beginning at the Swan River Rd. Bridge Simons Li & Lower Swan Lake March 12 Detailed upstream of Bigfork Dam and extending Associates, Inc. River Study County 1986 upstream to the outlet of Swan Lake. Beginning approx. 6.5 miles upstream of Simons Li & Upper Swan Lake March 20 Detailed the Swan Lake inlet and extending Associates, Inc. River Study County 1986 upstream to the Missoula Co. boundary. Lake September Limited Analysis of the Swan Lake floodplain PBS&J Swan Lake 9.5 County 2010 Detail including 23 miles of shoreline. Beginning at the river mouth and Swan River Flathead December DNRC 0.5 Detailed Flathead Lake confluence and extending at Bigfork County 2012 upstream 0.5 miles. Table 1 is a summary of the effective detailed level studies on the Swan River. There are also several reaches of the channel with approximate level mapping which are remnants of the FHBMs from the 1970s. Each of the effective detailed studies included a hydrologic analysis including estimation of peak flows. The following is a description of the hydrologic analysis method selected for estimating peak flows for each study: Lower Swan River Study – A Log-Pearson Type III analysis was performed on the annual maximum discharges to determine peak return flows (Reference 4). Upper Swan River
Recommended publications
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Flathead National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication

    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Flathead National Forest This Report Contains the Best Available Information at the Time of Publication

    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 01/01/2021 to 03/31/2021 Flathead National Forest This report contains the best available information at the time of publication. Questions may be directed to the Project Contact. Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring Nationwide Locatable Mining Rule - 36 CFR - Regulations, Directives, In Progress: Expected:12/2021 12/2021 Nancy Rusho 228, subpart A. Orders DEIS NOA in Federal Register 202-731-9196 09/13/2018 [email protected] EIS Est. FEIS NOA in Federal Register 11/2021 Description: The U.S. Department of Agriculture proposes revisions to its regulations at 36 CFR 228, Subpart A governing locatable minerals operations on National Forest System lands.A draft EIS & proposed rule should be available for review/comment in late 2020 Web Link: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=57214 Location: UNIT - All Districts-level Units. STATE - All States. COUNTY - All Counties. LEGAL - Not Applicable. These regulations apply to all NFS lands open to mineral entry under the US mining laws. More Information is available at: https://www.fs.usda.gov/science-technology/geology/minerals/locatable-minerals/current-revisions. Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) 01/01/2021 04:03 am MT Page 1 of 8 Flathead National Forest Expected Project Name Project Purpose Planning Status Decision Implementation Project Contact Projects Occurring in more than one Region (excluding Nationwide) Pacific Northwest National - Recreation management On Hold N/A N/A Becky Blanchard Scenic Trail Comprehensive 503-808-2449 Plan [email protected] EA Description: The Comprehensive Plan will develop administrative and management goals, objectives and practices for public lands in Forest Service Regions 1 and Regions 6.
  • Fishing Brochure

    Fishing Brochure

    G E N E R A L INFORMATION While there are many opportunities to take off on your own and enjoy fishing in the Flathead Valley, many STANDARD FISHING SEASON... CONSERVE NATIVE FISH of our visitors prefer to go with an expert. A profes- FISHING YEAR 'ROUND OPPORTUNITIES Native Westslope Cutthroat and Bull Trout have sional guide can make your fishing more enjoyable, more productive and safer. Streams open the third Saturday in May through declined in distribution and abundance. It is illegal November 30. Some streams have extended white- to fish for or keep Bull Trout except in Swan Lake or fish and catch-and-release fishing for trout from with a Bull Trout catch card. Catch and release or low limits required for Cutthroat in most streams and December through the third Saturday in May. some lakes. Check the Montana fishing regulations For more information on the area Lakes are open the entire year, with some excep- for a species identification guide. and a list of member guides: tions. Be sure to check the regulations for the par- ticular lake you'll be fishing. CATCH & RELEASE Flathead Convention A great fish deserves to be caught more than once! & Visitor Bureau LICENSES AND REGULATIONS 15 Depot Park Fishing licenses are available at most sporting goods While it's wonderful to eat fresh trout caught only Kalispell, MT 59901 stores, marinas and some convenience stores. All moments earlier, we ask you to help preserve Mon- 800-543-3105 nonresidents 15 years and older must have a fishing tana's fishing opportunities and wildlife by following license.
  • Ecologically Significant Wetlands

    Ecologically Significant Wetlands

    Ecologically Significant Wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River Valleys FINAL REPORT JUNE 1, 1999 Submitted to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by Jack Greenlee Ecologically Significant Wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River Valleys JUNE 1, 1999 DEQ Agreement 280016 ã 1999 Montana Natural Heritage Program State Library Building · P.O. Box 201800 · 1515 East Sixth Avenue · Helena, MT 59620-1800 · 406-444-3009 This document should be cited as follows: Greenlee, J.T. 1998. Ecologically significant wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River valleys. Unpub- lished report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 192 pp. The Montana Natural Heritage Program received a wetland protection Abstract grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to identify and inven- tory ecologically significant wetlands and prioritize them for conserva- tion, restoration, and mitigation applications. Much of the state lacks basic information about its wetland resources like National Wetland Inventory maps, and there is even less information available about which of the remaining wetlands are functionally intact and of high quality. This report summarizes the results of a field inventory of high quality wetlands in the Flathead Valley. The project focused on both public and private wetlands found in the Flathead Lake, Stillwater, and Swan drainages in the Flathead River watershed. We identified potential wetlands for inventory by querying locally knowledgeable individuals, and by using National Wetland Inventory maps, aerial imagery, and agency data. Criteria used to select wetlands for inventory included large size, wetlands without geomorphic or hydrologic modification, presence of intact native plant communities, presence of concentrations of rare plants or animals, and intact uplands.
  • Estimating Wetland Conditions

    Estimating Wetland Conditions

    Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds Prepared for: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Prepared by: Melissa Hart, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn Montana Natural Heritage Program a cooperative program of the Montana State Library and the University of Montana December 2015 Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds Prepared for: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Agreement Number: CD-96814001-0 Prepared by: Melissa Hart, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn ©2015 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 ● 1515 East Sixth Avenue ● Helena, MT 59620-1800 ● 406-444-5354 i This document should be cited as follows: Hart, Melissa, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn. 2015. Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 52 pp. plus appendices. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of our fourth statewide rotating basin assessment, focusing on wetlands in the Blackfoot and Swan subbasins of western Montana. We assessed wetland condition within nine watersheds at multiple spatial scales. We conducted Level 1 GIS analyses that produced: 1) wetland landscape profiles, which summarize information on wetland abundance, type, and extent within a given watershed; and 2) a landscape characterization, which characterizes the anthropogenic stressors such as roads and land uses, as well as general information regarding wetland landscape context, using readily available digital datasets. We carried out Level 2 assessments to provide rapid, field-based assessments of wetland condition based on four attributes: 1) Landscape Context; 2) Vegetation; 3) Physicochemical; and 4) Hydrology.
  • Download This

    Download This

    '/•""•'/• fc* NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-00 (Rev. Oct 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service JUN20I994 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NATIONAL REGISTRATION FORM REGISTER 1. Name of Property historic name: Kearney Rapids Bridge other name/site number: Ferndale Bridge 2. Location street & number: Bigfork Canyon Road not for publication: n/a vicinity: X cityAown: Bigfork state: Montana code: MT county: Rathead code: 029 zip code: 59911 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination _ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant _ nationally X statewide X locally. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official/Title \fjF~ Date Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification Entered in t I, hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper National Begistifte of Action ^/entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): ___________ Kcarnev Rapids Bridge Flathead County.
  • The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness

    The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness

    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1995 A Confluence of sovereignty and conformity : the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Diane L. Krahe 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 Krahe, Diane L., "A Confluence of sovereignty and conformity : the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness" (1995). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8956. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8956 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]. A CONFLUENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY AND CONFORMITY: THE MISSION MOUNTAINS TRIBAL WILDERNESS by Diane L Krahe BA Bridgewater College, 1986 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science The University of Montana 1995 Approved by; Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP39757 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 OiSiMflAtion Pubiishrig UMI EP39757 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
  • Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan

    Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan

    Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan A cooperative plan created by Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Submitted to the Bonneville Power Administration September 15, 2007 Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan A cooperative plan created by Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes September 2007 Swan Ecosystem Center 6887 Hwy 83 USFS Condon Work Center Condon, MT 59826 T 406-754-3137 F 406-754-2965 Email: [email protected] www.swanecosystemcenter.com Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Natural Resources Department 51383 Highway 93 North P.O. Box 278 Pablo, Montana 59855 T 406-883-2888 F 406-883-2896 www.cskt.org Report prepared by Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc in collaboration with the Elk Creek Management Group www.westernopenlands.com Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................2 Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................5 Background..........................................................................................................................5 Partnership: Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes............................................................................................5
  • Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana

    Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana

    Land Protection Plan Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana May 2011 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 922 Bootlegger Trail Great Falls, Montana 59404-6133 406 / 727 7400 http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning P. O. Box 25486-DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 303 / 236 4378 303 / 236 4792 fax http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2011. Land Protection Plan, Swan Valley. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 81 p. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, a land protection plan has been prepared to analyze the effects of creating the Swan Valley Conservation Area in western Montana. ■ The Swan Valley Conservation Area Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for acquiring 10,000 acres on private lands nestled between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Mission Mountain Wilderness. This project also includes the fee-title purchase of up to 1,000 acres immediately adjacent to Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. Note: Information contained in the maps within this document is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership infor­ mation may not be complete. Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii
  • Swan Lake Watershed TMDL Implementation Evaluation

    Swan Lake Watershed TMDL Implementation Evaluation

    Swan Lake Watershed TMDL Implementation Evaluation July 2017 Steve Bullock, Governor Tom Livers, Director DEQ Prepared by: Water Protection Bureau Watershed Protection Section Robert Ray, Water Quality Specialist Contributors: DEQ Water Protection Bureau Watershed Protection Section DEQ Water Quality Planning Bureau Monitoring and Assessment Section Swan Valley Connections Flathead National Forest Flathead Biological Station Weyerhaeuser Cover photo: Jim Creek Bridge on FSR 888, Flathead National Forest Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Protection Bureau 1520 E. Sixth Avenue P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Suggested citation: Prepared by Robert Ray. 2017. Swan Lake Watershed TMDL Implementation Evaluation. Helena, MT: Montana Dept. of Environmental Quality. REVISION HISTORY Revision Date Modified Sections Description of Changes No. By Modified Swan Lake Watershed TIE – Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS REVISION HISTORY ......................................................................................................................................... i Acronyms ...................................................................................................................................................... ii Document Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 – Introduction and Background ........................................................................................................... 1-1 2.0
  • Kootenai Lodge Kootenai Lodge

    Kootenai Lodge Kootenai Lodge

    ALL 2004 F COMPLIMENTARY FLATFLATHHEADEAD NORTHWEST MONTANA...THE LAST BEST PLACE LIVING ̄ The history and romance of... Kootenai Lodge KALISPELL • WHITEFISH • BIGFORK • LAKESIDE • POLSON • COLUMBIA FALLS • GLACIER KOOTENAI LODGE The magical Kootenai Lodge is reflected in a tranquil Swan Lake. A STORYBOOK PLACE Photos and text by Kay Bjork ou arrive at Kootenai Lodge and peer curiously through an iron gate adorned with graceful swan silhouettes. The Y drive meanders down into the luscious green estate where towering pines stand like sentinels over the log buildings that line the shores of a glittery Swan Lake. FLATHEAD LIVING Fall 2004 www.flatheadliving.com 79 At the main lodge you enter another gate– KOOTENAI LODGE this one small and inviting, like one you would expect in a secret garden. You im- mediately feel safe and quieted in the court- yard that leads to the grand main lodge. Whimsical etchings created by Charlie Russell in a bygone era are lit up by bright afternoon sun – salamander, turtle and a noble Indian headdress. You are tempted to take off your shoes so that you can feel the curve and dip of the salamander and the warm cement on your feet. You swing the heavy double door open and the latch clinks with the thud of the door behind you. Twirling to take in the im- mense room, warmed by the red-hued larch logs and accented by the soft grey of un- peeled cedar, you imagine the delicious sound of music and laughter in this party place. You turn in a circle, slowly now, to take in the scope of this huge room: the walk- in fireplace, antique wicker furniture, a dozen animal mounts, and a Steinway grand piano.
  • Mineral Resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana

    Mineral Resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana

    Mineral Resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana By JACK E. HARRISON, MITCHELL W. REYNOLDS, and M. DEAN KLEINKOPF, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, and ELDON C. PATTEE, U.S. BUREAU OF MINES STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1261-D An evaluation of the mineral potential of the area UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS Pursuant to the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, Sept. 3,1964) and the Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines are making mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilder­ ness," "wild," and "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Areas classed as "primitive" were not included in the Wilderness System, but the act provided that each primitive area should be studied for its suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. This bulletin reports the results of a mineral survey in the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Montana. The area discussed in the report corresponds to the area under con­ sideration for wilderness status. This bulletin is one of a series of similar reports on primitive areas. CONTENTS Page Summary _________________________________________________________ Dl t Geology and mineral resources, by Jack E.
  • Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake County, Montana

    Community Wildfire Protection Plan for Lake County, Montana

    Community Wildfire Protection Plan For Lake County, Montana January, 2005 Prepared For: Prepared By: Lake County, Montana Arctos Research Jeff Reistroffer, Project Mgr. In Cooperation With P.O. Box 728 Northwest Regional RC&D, Plains, MT 59859 Montana Department of Commerce, and Tel. (406) 826-5171 U.S. Forest Service, National Fire Plan [email protected] LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................1 1.1 PURPOSE..........................................................................................................................1 1.2 GOALS...............................................................................................................................3 1.3 PLAN STRUCTURE...........................................................................................................4 1.4 PLANNING PROCESS......................................................................................................4 CHAPTER 2: LAKE COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS ..............................................................10 2.1 POPULATION ..................................................................................................................10 2.2 LAKE COUNTY COMMUNITIES .....................................................................................10 2.3 LAND COVER..................................................................................................................11 2.4