DOCSLIB.ORG

Dnrc Summary Report Sb330 Water Reservation Ten Year Review

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Dnrc Summary Report Sb330 Water Reservation Ten Year Review DNRC SUMMARY REPORT SB330 WATER RESERVATION TEN YEAR REVIEW June 2016 Water Resource Division Water Rights Bureau 1424 9th Avenue P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-1601 http://dnrc.mt.gov/divisions/water/water-rights for questions call (406) 444-6614 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Description .............................................................................. …….. 1 Municipal Reservations ……………………………………………………………………………. 2 Yellowstone Final Order ..................................................................... 3 Lower Missouri Final Order................................................................. 5 Upper Missouri Final Order ................................................................. 6 Conservation District Reservations ……………………………………………………………. 8 Yellowstone Final Order …………………………………………………………………. 9 Lower Missouri Final Order …………………………………………………………….. 10 Upper Missouri Final Order …………………………………………………………….. 11 State & Federal Reservations ……………………………………………………………………. 11 Yellowstone Final Order …………………………………………………………………. 12 Upper Missouri Final Order ……………………………………………………………. 13 Appendix A, (Yellowstone Municipal Reservations).…………………………………. 14 Big Timber .......................................................................................…. 15 Billings ................................................................................................. 19 Broadus ............................................................................................... 23 Columbus ............................................................................................ 26 Glendive .................................................................. ………………………… 30 Laurel ................................................................................................. 33 Livingston ........................................................................................... 36 Miles City ............................................................................................ 40 Appendix B, (Lower Missouri Municipal Reservations)................................. 43 Circle ……………………………………………………………………………………………… 44 Culbertson .......................................................................................... 47 Ekalaka ............................................................................................... 51 Fort Peck ............................................................................................ 54 Havre ……............................................................................................ 57 Malta .................................................................................................. 59 Plentywood ........................................................................................ 62 Poplar ………………….............................................................................. 65 Scobey …………..................................................................................... 67 Wibaux ............................................................................................... 71 Wolf Point .......................................................................................... 73 i Appendix C, (Upper Missouri Municipal Reservations) ............................... 76 Belgrade ............................................................................................. 77 Bozeman ............................................................................................. 82 Chester ............................................................................................... 93 Cut Bank ............................................................................................. 94 East Helena ......................................................................................... 96 Fairfield ............................................................................................... 100 Fort Benton ......................................................................................... 104 Great Falls ........................................................................................... 106 Helena ................................................................................................. 111 Lewistown ........................................................................................... 116 Shelby .................................................................................................. 120 Three Forks .......................................................................................... 125 West Yellowstone ................................................................................ 130 Winifred .................................................................. …………………………. 136 Appendix D, (Yellowstone Conservation District Reservations) ..……………….. 139 Big Horn Conservation District ………………………………………………………… 140 Carbon Conservation District ………………………………………………………….. 144 Custer County Conservation District ……………………………………………….. 147 Dawson County Conservation District …………………………………………….. 150 Little Beaver Conservation District ………………………………………………….. 153 Park County Conservation District …………………………………………………… 156 Powder River Conservation District ………………………………………………… 159 Prairie County Conservation District ………………………………………………. 162 Richland County Conservation District …………………………………………… 165 Rosebud Conservation District ………………………………………………………. 168 Stillwater Conservation District ……………………………………………………… 171 Sweet Grass Conservation District ………………………………………………… 174 Treasure Conservation District ………………………………………………………. 177 Yellowstone Conservation District …………………………………………………. 180 Appendix E, (Lower Missouri Conservation District Reservations).……………. 183 Blaine County Conservation District ………………………………………………. 184 Carter County Conservation District ………………………………………………. 186 Daniels County Conservation District …………………………………………….. 188 Liberty County Conservation District ……………………………………………… 190 Little Beaver Conservation District ………………………………………………… 193 ii McCone County Conservation District ……………………………………………. 195 Richland County Conservation District ………………………………………….. 198 Roosevelt County Conservation District ………………………………………… 201 Sheridan County Conservation District …………………………………………. 204 Valley County Conservation District ……………………………………………… 207 Wibaux County Conservation District …………………………………………… 210 Appendix F, (Upper Missouri Conservation District Reservations)…………… 212 Broadwater Conservation District ………………………………………………… 213 Cascade County Conservation District ………………………………………….. 214 Choteau County Conservation District ………………………………………….. 217 Fergus County Conservation District …………………………………………….. 220 Gallatin County Conservation District …………………………………………… 223 Glacier County Conservation District ……………………………………………. 224 Jefferson Valley Conservation District ………………………………………….. 227 Judith Basin Conservation District ………………………………………………… 228 Lewis & Clark Conservation District ……………………………………………… 231 Liberty County Conservation District ……………………………………………. 232 Lower Musselshell Conservation District ………………………………………. 235 Pondera County Conservation District …………………………………………… 238 Teton County Conservation District ………………………………………………. 241 Toole County Conservation District ………………………………………………. 244 Valley County Conservation District ……………………………………………… 247 Appendix G, (State & Federal Reservations)……………………………………………. 250 State of Montana, Trust Lands ……………………………………………………… 251 State of Montana, Dept. of Natural Resources, (DNRC) ………………… 254 Bureau of Reclamation ……………………………………………………………….. 257 Bureau of Land Management & Montana State Lands ………………… 263 Bureau of Reclamation …………………………………………………………………. 265 iii Project Description: The 2015 Montana Legislature enacted Senate Bill 330 which directed the Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) to conduct a 10–year review of existing state water reservations as outlined in Administrative Rules of Montana, (ARM), 36.16.120 by July 1, 2016 and provide a report to the Water Policy Interim Committee before September 15, 2016. These rules require that each reservant submit a report reviewing the objectives of the reservation, how these are being met, and provide information which the DNRC will use to assess the ongoing need for the reservation. On October 14, 2015 the DNRC sent a contact letter to each of the entities holding a reservation subject to review. The deadline for submission of the requested information was December 31, 2015. The DNRC compiled a list of questions, accompanying this letter, titled “Water Reservation Questionnaire” to help identify and answer the specific requirements outlined in ARM, 36.16.120. DNRC will consider the completed questionnaire a “report” as contemplated by the rules. ARM 36.16.120 reads: “Except for reservations for the purposes of maintaining a minimum flow, level, or quality of water or a reservation provided in 85-20-1401, MCA, the department shall review water reservations at least once every ten years to determine if the objectives of the reservation are being met..” The bulk of all water reservations in Montana, (including all that require review through this order), are associated with the following three Final Orders issued by the State of Montana Board of Natural Resources and Conservation, (now the DNRC). Yellowstone Final Order (Issued December 15, 1978) The Upper Missouri Final Order (Issued July 1, 1992) The Lower Missouri Final Order (Issued December 30, 1994)
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Distribution, Biology and Harvest of Common Snipe (Capella Gallinago Delicata)
    Distribution, biology and harvest of Common Snipe (Capella gallinago delicata) in Montana by Graham Stuart Taylor A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Graham Stuart Taylor (1978) Abstract: Distribution, migration chronology, breeding biology and harvest of Common Snipe (Capella gallinago delicata) were studied during 1976 and 1977 in Montana. Seven census sites, including one intensive study site, were maintained: Jackson and Divide in southwest Montana, Helm- ville and Choteau in the westcentral portion of the state, Malta and Medicine Lake in the northeast and Belgrade, which doubled as an intensive study site, in southcentral Montana. Spring arrival dates varied from 11 April to 11 May at Belgrade and Medicine Lake, respectively. Fall migration observed at the Belgrade area peaked the last two weeks of October in both years. Breeding pair densities (pairs per 100 hectare of habitat) for each census site, based on winnowing censuses were 14 pairs at Jackson, 17 at Divide, 14 at Helmville, 21 at Choteau, 50 at Malta, 8 at Medicine Lake and 34 at Belgrade. Breeding habitat surveyed ranged in size from 269 hectares at Jackson to 26 at Malta. Based on information from 20 nests, peak hatch occurred the last week of May and the first two weeks in June at Belgrade. Ninety-five percent of twenty-one nests were successful while individual egg success was equally high at 93 percent. Clutch size averaged 4 eggs. Vegeta-tional analysis of nest sites showed a strong preference by nesting snipe for stands of Carex spp.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Chapter 1.0 the Growth Policy
    TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1.0 THE GROWTH POLICY ............................................... 1 1.1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................1 1.2 STATEMENT OF INTENT......................................................................................1 1.4 PREPARATION OF THE GROWTH POLICY ........................................................1 1.4.1 GETTING STARTED ..........................................................................1 1.4.2 REAFFIRMATION OF EXISTING GOALS.................................................2 1.4.3 IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUES, NEEDS AND PREFERENCES.......................3 1.4.4 POLICY DEVELOPMENT .....................................................................4 1.5 GROWTH POLICY ADMINISTRATION...............................................................5 1.5.1 IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................5 1.5.2 CONDITIONS FOR GROWTH POLICY REVISIONS ...................................5 1.5.3 TIMETABLE FOR REVIEW...................................................................5 1.5.4 COOPERATION WITH CITY OF BIG TIMBER ..........................................6 1.5.5 CITY-COUNTY PLANNING BOARD JURISDICTION .................................6 CHAPTER 2.0 COUNTY HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION ........................... 7 2.1 COUNTY HISTORY ..............................................................................................7 2.2 AREA DESCRIPTIONS........................................................................................10
    [Show full text]
  • East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike
    East Gallatin Nutrient Monitoring Project: Summary Report, 2017 Data Collection and ‘Site H’ Algal Spike 215 W. Mendenhall, Suite 300 Bozeman, MT 59715 406.582.3168 www.glwqd.org Prepared by Torie Haraldson, Water Quality Tech. Specialist January, 2019 Project Background The Gallatin Local Water Quality District (GLWQD) led water quality data collection for a modeling effort by the City of Bozeman (the City) from 2014-2016. The purpose of the model is to understand the potential implications of Montana Department of Environmental Quality’s (DEQ) Total Maximum Daily Load assessment on the City’s Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for their water reclamation facility (WRF) that discharges to the East Gallatin River, just north of Bozeman, Montana. Modeling (by HDR of Missoula) has provided insight into nutrient processing within the river system and its potential responses to nutrient management activities. The modeling process employs the river and stream water quality model QUAL2K, which couples nutrient data with light, weather, topography, and other inputs to predict algal growth in reaches along the river continuum. A project progress report by City of Bozeman staff at the GLWQD Board of Directors May 4, 2017 meeting included results that indicated a spike in algal density at ‘Site H’, a site on the main stem of the East Gallatin River approximately 13 miles downstream of the WRF (Figure 1). Chlorophyll-a is a photosynthetic pigment that is isolated from algae samples and used to quantify algal density. Mean Algal Chlorophyll-a at Main Stem Sites, 2014-2016 200 ) 180 2 160 140 120 July August Area Area (mg/m Density 100 a - September 80 Overall Mean 60 40 Mean Chlorophyll 20 0 ← Site ID ← River mi.
    [Show full text]
  • Freshwater Measures for the Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregion of Montana
    Freshwater Measures for the Northern Great Plains Steppe Ecoregion of Montana Prepared under the Freshwater Initiative Agreement #1410258002-0000 by David M. Stagliano Aquatic Ecologist December 2006 Natural Resource Information System Montana State University Executive Summary Project goals of the Freshwater Ecoregional Measures for the Northern Great Plains Steppe (NGPS) are to: 1) identify and reevaluate the number, diversity and viability of aquatic target occurrences within the Montana portion of the NGPS Ecoregional Plan based on a suite of indicator-based measures set within the aquatic ecological system framework, and 2) determine biodiversity viability measures (for the aquatic ecological system types, or for target species), threat status, and protection of these targets within the portfolio sites of the Ecoregional Plan. Using a combination of field data and GIS data layers, we analyzed the intersection of portfolio sites, 5th code watersheds, target occurrences, and indicator measures (viability, threats, and protection) to form an effective conservation map of selected MT portfolio sites in the NGPS. Overall, 34 of Montana’s 43 native fish species reside within the NGPS ecoregion. Nine of these are MT Species of Special Concern (SOC), one of which is listed Endangered by the USFWS and four are potential species of concern (PSOC). All of these fish species, except one have at least one viable occurrence within MT’s portfolio sites. The 15 types of prairie aquatic ecological systems (8 biological) are well represented within the portfolio, including associated aquatic macroinvertebrate communities with their SOC species. Threats in the portfolio with the broadest scope and severity are agriculture and surface diversions in the watersheds, while the most pervasive moderate level threats are riparian grazing and presence of northern pike, an introduced piscivorous fish.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Recommendations to Prevent Nuisance Algae Conditions
    Wadeable Streams of Montana’s Hi-line Region: An Analysis of Their Nature and Condition, with an Emphasis on Factors Affecting Aquatic Plant Communities AND Recommendations to Prevent Nuisance Algae Conditions Prepared by Michael Suplee, Ph.D. May 2004 Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Standards Section 1520 E. 6th Ave P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 Wadeable Streams of Montana’s Hi-line Region: An Analysis of Their Nature and Condition, with an Emphasis on Factors Affecting Aquatic Plant Communities AND Recommendations to Prevent Nuisance Algae Conditions Prepared by Michael Suplee, Ph.D. May 2004 Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Standards Section 1520 E. 6th Ave P.O. Box 200901 Helena, MT 59620-0901 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This project could not have been completed without the efforts of a number of people. I would like to thank the private landowners for granting us permission to carry out this study on their property, and I would like to thank the peoples of the Fort Peck Reservation for the same. I would particularly like to thank Dr. Vicki Watson of the University of Montana for her suggestions early in the project on study design and site selection, and for the innumerable conversations we had throughout the project that helped to improve it. I would also like to acknowledge John Lhotak and Marianne Zugel, both graduate students of Dr. Watson, whom conducted the vast majority of the field- work and much of the laboratory analyses. I would like to thank Rosie Sada de Suplee of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality for her assistance with early scouting efforts in the Hi-line region, and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Fishing Regulations
    MONTANA FISHING REGULATIONS 20March 1, 2018 — F1ebruary 828, 2019 Fly fishing the Missouri River. Photo by Jason Savage For details on how to use these regulations, see page 2 fwp.mt.gov/fishing With your help, we can reduce poaching. MAKE THE CALL: 1-800-TIP-MONT FISH IDENTIFICATION KEY If you don’t know, let it go! CUTTHROAT TROUT are frequently mistaken for Rainbow Trout (see pictures below): 1. Turn the fish over and look under the jaw. Does it have a red or orange stripe? If yes—the fish is a Cutthroat Trout. Carefully release all Cutthroat Trout that cannot be legally harvested (see page 10, releasing fish). BULL TROUT are frequently mistaken for Brook Trout, Lake Trout or Brown Trout (see below): 1. Look for white edges on the front of the lower fins. If yes—it may be a Bull Trout. 2. Check the shape of the tail. Bull Trout have only a slightly forked tail compared to the lake trout’s deeply forked tail. 3. Is the dorsal (top) fin a clear olive color with no black spots or dark wavy lines? If yes—the fish is a Bull Trout. Carefully release Bull Trout (see page 10, releasing fish). MONTANA LAW REQUIRES: n All Bull Trout must be released immediately in Montana unless authorized. See Western District regulations. n Cutthroat Trout must be released immediately in many Montana waters. Check the district standard regulations and exceptions to know where you can harvest Cutthroat Trout. NATIVE FISH Westslope Cutthroat Trout Species of Concern small irregularly shaped black spots, sparse on belly Average Size: 6”–12” cutthroat slash— spots
    [Show full text]
  • FINAL Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement
    Chapter 2 – Alternatives United States Department of FINAL Agriculture Forest Service Supplemental Final November 2011 Environmental Impact Statement Bozeman Municipal Watershed Project Bozeman Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest Gallatin County, Montana Looking north from the BMW Project area between the Hyalite and Leverich Creek divide toward Bozeman, MT. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual‟s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250- 9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 2 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Changes Between SFEIS (May 2011) and Final SFEIS (November 2011) Incorporation of the following changes and the inclusion of Appendix B – Response to Comments are the extent of the changes to the Supplemental Final Environmental Impact States (May 2011) that make up the Final SFEIS (November 2011). The Final SFEIS (November 2011) replaces SFEIS (May 2011) in its‟entirety. An errata sheet with the following updates and Appendix B will be circulated.
    [Show full text]
  • Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Powder River Structural Basin, Wyoming and Montana, 2005–06
    Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Powder River Structural Basin, Wyoming and Montana, 2005–06 Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Front cover photographs: Hanging Woman Creek below Horse Creek, Wyo. (site T11), June 22, 2005. Cheyenne River near Spencer, Wyo. (site C6), Photograph by Seth Davidson, U.S. Geological Survey. June 22, 2005. Photograph by Kendra Remley, U.S. Geological Survey. Youngs Creek near Crow Indian Reservation boundary, Mont. (site T3), June 14, 2005. Photograph by Peter Wright, U.S. Geological Survey. Cheyenne River near Dull Center, Wyo., (site C3), June 19, 2006. Photograph by Greg Boughton, U.S. Geological Survey. Ecological Assessment of Streams in the Powder River Structural Basin, Wyoming and Montana, 2005–06 By David A. Peterson, Peter R. Wright, Gordon P. Edwards, Jr., Eric G. Hargett, David L. Feldman, Jeremy R. Zumberge, and Paul Dey Prepared in cooperation with the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality, Wyoming Game and Fish Department, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Montana Depart- ment of Environmental Quality, and Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks Scientific Investigations Report 2009–5023 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Fisherman Use and Fish Harvest on the West Gallatin River, Montana by Richard Seth Lyden a Thesis Submitted to the Graduate Facu
    Fisherman use and fish harvest on the West Gallatin River, Montana by Richard Seth Lyden A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE in Fish and Wildlife Management Montana State University © Copyright by Richard Seth Lyden (1973) Abstract: Estimates of fishing intensity and yield of game fish were made on the canyon portion of the West Gallatin River, Montana during the summer fishing seasons, of 1971 and 1972» Two sections each about 11 miles long were selected for intensive study» These sections were the most accessible and most heavily fished portions of the river. An estimated 57 percent in 1971 and 36 percent in 1972 of all fisherman were interviewed. During 1971, total fisherman days per stream mile were estimated to be 181 and 224 for the upper and lower sections, respectively while during 1972 these values were 196 and 274, respectively. An increase in fishing pressure of 35 percent in the lower section was attributed to a shorter high and turbid water period in 1972. The catch varied from 5,318 fish caught in 3,305 fisherman days in section B during 1972 to 3,618 fish caught in 2,616 fisherman days in section B during 1971. The average number of fish caught per fisherman' day ranged from 1.38 to 2.02. Catch rates for wild rainbow trout ranged from 0.15 to 0.35 and for hatchery trout ranged from 0.05 to 0.30. Wild and hatchery rainbow trout combined, contributed 67.2 to 93.4 percent of the total game fish catch for both sections both years.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States
    No. 137, Original IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— October Term 2014 ———— STATE OF MONTANA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WYOMING and STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA, Defendants. ———— SECOND INTERIM REPORT OF THE SPECIAL MASTER (LIABILITY ISSUES) ———— BARTON H. THOMPSON, JR. Special Master Stanford, California December 29, 2014 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ viii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................... xxi I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1 II. THE RECORD .......................................... 3 III. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..................... 4 A. The Tongue River ................................ 4 B. Tongue River Water Use ..................... 8 1. Wyoming’s use of the Tongue River ............................................... 9 2. Montana’s use of the Tongue River ........................................................ 10 C. The Tongue River Reservoir ............... 12 IV. LEGAL BACKGROUND .......................... 14 A. The Yellowstone River Compact ......... 14 1. Key provisions of the Compact ...... 14 2. Difficulties in administering the Compact .......................................... 18 B. Western Water Law ............................ 18 C. The Northern Cheyenne Compact ...... 22 V. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................... 24 A. Montana v. Wyoming, 131 S. Ct. 1765 (2011) ................................................... 25 B. Subsequent Pre-Trial Proceedings ....
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of Water Quality Conditions in Coal Mine Backfill in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming1
    EVALUATION OF WATER QUALITY CONDITIONS IN COAL MINE BACKFILL IN THE POWDER RIVER BASIN OF WYOMING1 Roberta N. Hoy, Kathy Muller Ogle, and Mark Taylor2 Abstract: In the Powder River Basin of Wyoming, water quality monitoring data were evaluated for a number of wells completed in mine backfill, which have sufficiently recharged for evaluation of mining impacts on water quality. Based on the data reviewed to date, the backfill water quality is usually similar to baseline water quality in the Wyodak-Anderson coal aquifer and Wasatch overburden. However, as the backfill materials recharge, the trends in the concentrations of specific constituents (in particular, total dissolved solids and sulfate) may reflect site- specific conditions, including: proximity to recharge sources (e.g., clinker, unmined coal, and coal fenders between mines); changes in mining activities (e.g., temporary cessation of mining); and local conditions (e.g., leakage from impoundments). In some situations, constituent concentrations increase over time, while in others, constituent concentrations are relatively constant or are decreasing. Introduction The purpose of this paper is to examine water level and water quality data in coal mine backfill aquifers associated with mining of the Wyodak-Anderson coal seam along the eastern edge of the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. Concentrations of total dissolved solids (TDS) and sulfate, along with associated water levels, are examined from backfill aquifers at a northern and a southern group of mines (Figure 1). Paper1 was presented at the 2003 National Meeting of the American Society of Mining and Reclamation and The 9th Billings Land Reclamation Symposium, Billings MT, June 3-6, 2003.
    [Show full text]
  • Soil Survey of Sweet Grass County Area, Montana
    How to Use This Soil Survey Detailed Soil Maps The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. To find information about your area of interest, you can locate the Section, Township, and Range by zooming in on the Index to Map Sheets, or you can go to the Web Soil Survey at (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Note the map unit symbols that are in that area. The Contents lists the map units by symbol and name and shows the page where each map unit is described. See the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. ii This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly the Soil Conservation Service) has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 1997. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 1997. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 1997. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. It is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Sweet Grass County Conservation District. The most current official data are available through the NRCS Soil Data Mart website at http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission.
    [Show full text]