Geology of a Part of the Southern Margin of the Gallatin Valley Southwest Montana

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Geology of a Part of the Southern Margin of the Gallatin Valley Southwest Montana University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1963 Geology of a part of the southern margin of the Gallatin Valley Southwest Montana Martin David Mifflin 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 Mifflin, Martin David, "Geology of a part of the southern margin of the Gallatin Valley Southwest Montana" (1963). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6114. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6114 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]. NOTICE: THIS MATERIAL MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT LAW 3^ A tm GEOLOGY OF A PART OF THE SOUTHERN MARGIN OF THE GALLATIN VALLEY, SOUTHWEST MONTANA by MARTIN D. MIFFLIN A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN APPLIED SCIENCE With a Major in Geology Approved : Head, Major Department Chairman, Examining Committee an, Graduate Division MONTANA STATE COLLEGE Bozeman, Montana June, 1963 UMI Number: EP36915 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 UMI EP36915 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProOuesf ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 -1346 ItEfiTRtCTCO SfALK N 3 ’S' „!( VITA Martin David Mifflin was born on March 29, 1937, in Olympia, Washington. His parents are John P. Mifflin (deceased) and Eva Louise Mifflin. Mr. Mifflin attended public primary schools in Portland, •Oregon; Olympia, Washington; and Silver Springs, Maryland. He graduated from West Valley High School in Millwood, Washington, in 1955. He then entered Washington State College and attended until early in 1957. The spring quarter of 1957 he attended Eastern Washington College of Educa­ tion at Cheney, Washington. The fall of 1957 he entered the University of Washington and graduated in the spring of 1960 with a B.S. in geology In the fall of 1960 he entered Montana State College, in pursuit of a master's degree in Applied Science with a major in Geology. Professional experience other than this study consists of six months as an apprentice geologist for Pan American Petroleum Corporation in western Alaska in 1959, and three months as a geologist for the U.S. Geological Survey in the Lemhi Range in Idaho, in 1962. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1 Previous Investigations . 2 Acknowledgements. ....... « .......... 3 GEOGRAPHY................................................ 3 Location............ 3 Topography........................... 4 Climate............. ..... 4 Land Economics............................. 5 Vegetation.......................................... 5 STRATIGRAPHY............................................ 6 PreCambrian ...... 6 Paleozoic ................ 8 Middle Cambrian................ 8 Upper C a m b r i a n ........................... 10 Devonian ............ 11 Mlssissippian . ................. ...... 12 Tertiary.................... 12 Eocene............ 12 Late Miocene......................... 15 Intrusive Rocks .............. 24 Surficial Deposits and Related Features . , ........... 25 West Gallatin River Floodplain (Qal) ............... 27 Terrace No. 1 (Qtgi) .......................... 29 Terrace No, 2 (Qtg2) .............................. 30 Terrace No. 3 (Qtgg)............................... 32 Other River Terrace Remnants....................... 34 Analysis of Terrace Slopes ................... 36 Pediment Remnants (Qpg^) ................. 41 High Gravels (Qpg2) 47 Other Terraces......... 56 Alluvial Fans (Qfg)............................... 56 Mass Wasting Deposits (Qm).......................... 57 L o e s s ............................................ 58 PALEOTOPOGRAPHY.......................................... 60 Pre-late Miocene Paleotopography...................... 60 Pre-middle Eocene Paleotopography .................... 64 STRUCTURE................................................ 68 Regional Structural Setting .......................... 68 Faults............................................. 72 The Salesville Fault ............................... 73 Elk Creek Faults .............................. 76 Highline Canal Faults................. 79 iv Gallatin Range Front Fault.......................... 83 Brown Hollow Faults .............................. 88 Camp Creek Valley Fault........................... 91 Other F a u l t s ......................................' 95 Other structural Features.............. 96 Conclusions Regarding Structure........................ 97 GEOLOGIC HISTORY ........................................... 99 Precambrlan............................................. 99 Paleozoic to Early Late Cretaceous........................ 99 Late Cretaceous and Faleocene........................... 100 E o c e n e ................................................102 Ollgocene to late Miocene ............. ......... 103 Late Miocene to P l i o c e n e ............................... 105 Pliocene to early Pleistocene .......................... 105 Middle and late Pleistocene ........................... 107 Summary................ 107 LIST OF PLATES Plate I Geologic map of a part of the southern margin of the Gallatin Valley, Montana In Pocket Plate II Cross sections and profiles of the south margin of the Gallatin Valley, Montana After Page 36 Plate III Index map of fault relationships After Page 72 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Southeast view of basic volcanic rock remnant .... 14 Figure 2 Ditch exposures of laté Miocene strata, and Qpg^ surface ................................. 15 Figure 3 Dipping late Miocene strata near Brown Hollow . 16 Figure 4 Late Miocene arkoslc conglomerate.............. 20 Figure 5 Tentative correlations of surficial features . 26 Figure 6 View of Qtgg, Qtgu, and Qpg^ surfaces................. 30 Figure 7 Gravels of Qpg^..................................... 33 Figure 8 Northerly view of High F l a t ......................... 43 Figure 9 Typical relationship of pediment gravels............... 44 V Figure 10 Gravels of Q p g g ........ 47 Figure 11 Southwesterly view of High Flat and Qpgg deposits . 49 Figure 12 Exposure of Qpgg deposits.......................... 50 Figure 13 Northerly view of Qpg, remnants and Qpg_ pediment h e a d ......... : ............... ^..............52 Figure 14 Loess deposits on Qpgg gravel....................... 58 Figure 15 View of partly exhumed Camp Creek paleotopographic valley ......................................... 61 Figure 16 View of the low relief developed on the bedrock of High Flat....................................... 64 Figure 17 Diagrams of two possible modes of development of the High Flat low relief surface.....................65 Figure 18 Gallatin Valley structure index map .............. 71 Figure 19 Diagram of the tilted fault block bedrock relation­ ships ................ 77 Figure 20 Middle Highline Canal Fault bedrock displacement. 81 Figure 21 Fault drag in late Miocene strata along Middle Highline Fault.................................. 82 Figure 22 View of the Gallatin Range Front Fault and W. Gallatin River canyon............................ 84 Figure 23 Late Miocene strata dipping 25° east................ 87 Figure 24 East Brown Hollow Fault scarp .................... 88 Figure 25 Two interpretations of the development of E. Brown Hollow Fault scarp.............. 90 Figure 26 Possible relationships on the SE portion of Camp Creek Fault..................................... 93 Figure 27 Relationships of Camp Creek fault post late Miocene movement ......................... • • . 94 Vi ABSTRACT A detailed study of an 88-square-inile area along the southern margin of the Gallatin Valley where late Miocene tuffaceous sediments rest with sinuous unconformable contact on Precambrian metamorphic rocks and Paleozoic strata indicates that structural features control the present configuration of the south margin of the valley. However, much of the evidence pertinent to the Cenozoic history of the area is either indirect or so sparse as to be only suggestive. The sinuous contact, which would suggest sediments partly filled the present valley rather than that structure controlled the valley margin, is the result of a partially exhumed pre-late Miocene paleotopography which displays 2,500 feet of relief and eastward paleodrainage subparallel to Laramide structural trends. Total exhumation of the pre-late Miocene paleo­ topography apparently would yield mountainous topography with 3,500 or more feet of relief. Some of the old topographic high areas have broad summits which may be remnants of a pre-middle Eocene subvolcanic erosion surface stripped of Early
Recommended publications
  • 0 Vol 6, No 3 |Ey SPRING 1993 Newslettar of the Llontana Natlve Plant Srclety
    --'-'-- Kelseya uniflora cI 0 Vol 6, No 3 |ey SPRING 1993 Newslettar of the llontana Natlve Plant Srclety Type Localities and the Botanical Exploration of Montana - Peter Lesica lf you're a member of the Montana Native Plant Society, you're colfections of blanketflower (Gaillardia aristata), balsamroot probably getting usad to hearing plants referred to by their (Balsamorhiza sagittata), silvery lupine (Lupinus argenteusl and scientific name. Even though the/re often long and hard to mountain death-camas (Zgadenus elegans) - not bad for a da/s pronounce, perhaps you're even becoming convinced that they're work. Two weeks later he found scarlet globe-mallow useful. But where do these names come from, and how do (Sphaeralcea coccinea) near the Marias River in Toole County. taxonomists know what name clrrec.tly applies to which plant? Another early explorer in western Montana was Nathaniel When spotted knapweed first appeared in North America, how did Wyeth. He made a number of type collections from what he said taxonomists know that it was a European weed, Centaurea was the vicinity of the Flathead River. Among these were maculosa, instead of something else - perhaps an undescribed Columbia virgin's-bower (Clematis columbiana), low larkspur species? Taxonomy rests on a system of standards: for each (Delphinium bicololl and Wyeth's lupine (Luprnus wyethiil. He species that is described new to science, there is a type also made the first collections of white-head mule's-ears and specimen. This type specimen represents what the ta,ronomist northern mu le's-ears (Wy eth i a am pl e x i cau I i s artd W.
    [Show full text]
  • Haystack Development
    August 2, 2017 HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Moonlight Basin Overall Development Plan Wildlife Summary Report HAYSTACK DEVELOPMENT Wildlife Summary Report TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 1 2.0 EXISTING WILDLIFE AND HABITAT ..................................................................................... 4 2.1 HABITAT ........................................................................................................................................ 4 2.2 FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES ......................................................................................................... 6 2.2.1 Grizzly Bear .......................................................................................................................... 6 2.2.2 Canada Lynx ......................................................................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Wolverine ............................................................................................................................ 10 2.3 OTHER SPECIES OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE ............................................................................ 10 2.3.1 Species of Greatest Conservation Need .............................................................................. 10 2.3.2 Migratory Birds ................................................................................................................... 13 2.3.3 Big Game Species
    [Show full text]
  • 5340 Exchanges Missoula, Ninemile, Plains/Thompson
    5340 EXCHANGES MISSOULA, NINEMILE, PLAINS/THOMPSON FALLS, SEELEY LAKE, AND SUPERIOR RANGER DISTRICTS LOLO NATIONAL FOREST MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION LAND EXCHANGE MTM 92893 MINERAL POTENTIAL REPORT Minerals Examiner: _____________________________________ Norman B. Smyers, Geologist-Lolo and Flathead National Forests _____________________________________ Date Regional Office Review: _____________________________________ Michael J. Burnside, Northern Region Certified Review Mineral Examiner _____________________________________ Date Abstract-DNRC/Lolo NF Land Exchange Mineral Report: Page A-1 ABSTRACT The non-federal and federal lands involved in the proposed Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) Land Exchange are located across western Montana and within the exterior boundaries of the lands administered by the Lolo National Forest. The proposed land exchange includes approximately 12,123 acres of non-federal land and 10,150 acres of federal land located in six counties--Granite, Lincoln, Missoula, Mineral, Powell, and Sanders. For the Federal government, the purpose of the exchange is to improve land ownership patterns for more efficient and effective lands management by: reducing the need to locate landline and survey corners; reducing the need for issuing special-use and right-of-way authorizations; and facilitating the implementation of landscape level big game winter range vegetative treatments. With the exception of one DNRC parcel and six Federal parcels, the mineral estates of the parcels involved in the proposed land exchange are owned by either the State of Montana or the U.S. Government and can be conveyed with the corresponding surface estates. The exceptions are: the DNRC Sunrise parcel; and, for the U.S. Government, the Graham Mountain 2,Graham Mountain 10, Fourmile 10, St.
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGY and OIL and GAS PROSPECTS of the HUNTLEY FIELD, Montanj
    GEOLOGY AND OIL AND GAS PROSPECTS OF THE HUNTLEY FIELD, MONTANj By E. T. HANCOCK. INTRODUCTION. The Huntley field is in Yellowstone and Big Horn counties, south- central Montana, and embraces an area of about 650 square miles, part of which lies northwest and part southeast of Yellowstone River. The field has railroad facilities that are exceptionally good for this general region, being traversed by the main lines of the Northern Pacific and the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy railroads. These roads furnish excellent shipping facilities at Huntley, Warden, Ballantine, Pompeys Pillar, and other points. Acknowledgments. In presenting this report the writer desires to express his thanks to David White for valuable suggestions and criticisms, to T. W. Stanton and F. H. Knowlton for the identifica­ tion of fossils, and to C. E. Dobbins for assistance in the detailed mapping. He also wishes to call attention to the public service rendered by oil and gas operators who have furnished records of deep borings and by individuals who have contributed in various ways to the success of the investigation. Earlier investigations. The Huntley field is in reality an ex­ tension of the Lake Basin field, which was mapped by the writer during the summer of 1916.1 The geologic investigation of the region including the Lake Basin and Huntley fields began with the Northern Transcontinental Survey of 1882. Prior to that time geologists had described certain struc­ tural features and the stratigraphic succession at points closely ad­ jacent to these fields, such as Judith Gap, the canyon of the North Fork of the- Musselshell, and the Bridger Range, but almost noth­ ing had been written concerning the geology of the area herein de­ scribed.
    [Show full text]
  • Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana
    Report of Investigation 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg 2015 Cover photo by Richard Berg. Sapphires (very pale green and colorless) concentrated by panning. The small red grains are garnets, commonly found with sapphires in western Montana, and the black sand is mainly magnetite. Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences in Montana Richard B. Berg Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology MBMG Report of Investigation 23 2015 i Compilation of Reported Sapphire Occurrences, RI 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ............................................................................................................................1 Descriptions of Occurrences ..................................................................................................7 Selected Bibliography of Articles on Montana Sapphires ................................................... 75 General Montana ............................................................................................................75 Yogo ................................................................................................................................ 75 Southwestern Montana Alluvial Deposits........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Rock Creek sapphire district ........................................................................ 76 Specifi cally Dry Cottonwood Creek deposit and the Butte area ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cover Page and Intro 2006 AWRA MB.Pub
    PROCEEDINGS for Montana’s Lakes and Wetlands: Improving Integrated Water Management 23rd Annual Meeting of the MONTANA SECTION of the American Water Resources Association Polson, Montana October 12th and 13th, 2006 KawTuqNuk Inn Contents Thanks to Planners and Sponsors Full Meeting Agenda About the Keynote Speakers Concurrent Session and Poster Abstracts* Session 1. Wetlands and Streams Session 2. Mining and Water Quality Session 3. Ground Water and Surface Water Studies Session 4. Sediment, Channel Processes, Floodplains and Reservoir Management Poster Session Meeting Attendees *These abstracts were not edited and appear as submitted by the author, except for some changes in font and format. THANKS TO ALL WHO MAKE THIS EVENT POSSIBLE! • The AWRA Officers Kate McDonald, President, Ecosystem Research Group Tammy Crone, Treasurer, Gallatin Local Water Quality District Mike Roberts, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation May Mace, Montana Section Executive Secretary • Montana Water Center, Meeting Coordination Molly Boucher, Sue Faber, Susan Higgins, MJ Nehasil, Gretchen Rupp • Our Generous Sponsors (please see next page) Maxim Technologies, DEQ Wetlands Program, Montana Water Center, HydroSolutions Inc, and Watershed Consulting LLC • And especially, the many dedicated presenters, field trip leaders, moderators, student paper judges, and student volunteers Meeting planners Sue Higgins, May Mace, Lynda Saul, Tammy Crone, Mike Roberts and Katie McDonald. THE 2006 MEETING SPONSORS Major Sponsors (Watershed) Supporting Sponsors (River) Contributing Sponsors (Tributary) American Water Resources Association Montana Section’s 23rd Annual Meeting KawTuqNuk Inn, Polson, Montana October 12 and 13, 2006 AGENDA MONTana’S LAKES and WETlandS: IMPROVing INTegRATed WATER ManagemenT WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2006 8:00 am – 10:00 am REGISTRATION, KawTuqNuk, Lower Lobby 9:00 am – 4:00 pm Free Wetlands Identification Workshop with Pete Husby and Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Yellowstone National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping
    Geologic Resource Evaluation Scoping Summary Yellowstone National Park This document summarizes the results of a geologic resource evaluation scoping session that was held at Yellowstone National Park on May 16–17, 2005. The NPS Geologic Resources Division (GRD) organized this scoping session in order to view and discuss the park’s geologic resources, address the status of geologic maps and digitizing, and assess resource management issues and needs. In addition to GRD staff, participants included park staff and cooperators from the U.S. Geological Survey and Colorado State University (table 1). Table 1. Participants of Yellowstone’s GRE Scoping Session Name Affiliation Phone E-Mail Bob Volcanologist, USGS–Menlo Park 650-329-5201 [email protected] Christiansen Geologist/GRE Program GIS Lead, NPS Tim Connors 303-969-2093 [email protected] Geologic Resources Division Data Stewardship Coordinator, Greater Rob Daley 406-994-4124 [email protected] Yellowstone Network Supervisory Geologist, Yellowstone Hank Heasler 307-344-2441 [email protected] National Park Geologist, NPS Geologic Resources Bruce Heise 303-969-2017 [email protected] Division Cheryl Geologist, Yellowstone National Park 307-344-2208 [email protected] Jaworowski Katie Geologist/Senior Research Associate, 970-586-7243 [email protected] KellerLynn Colorado State University Branch Chief, NPS Geologic Resources Carol McCoy 303-969-2096 [email protected] Division Ken Pierce Surficial Geologist, USGS–Bozeman 406-994-5085 [email protected] Supervisory GIS Specialist, Yellowstone Anne Rodman 307-344-7381 [email protected] National Park Shannon GIS Specialist, Yellowstone National Park 307-344-7381 [email protected] Savage Monday, May 16, involved a welcome to Yellowstone National Park and an introduction to the Geologic Resource Evaluation (GRE) Program, including status of reports and digital maps.
    [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]
  • Gallatin Forest Partnership Frequently Asked Questions
    Gallatin Forest Partnership Frequently Asked Questions What is the Gallatin Forest Partnership? The Gallatin Forest Partnership is a group of local conservationists, hunters, anglers, mountain bikers, horseback riders, guest ranchers, skiers, paddlers, and citizens who care deeply about the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. We come from different backgrounds and have different perspectives. Still, we work together because we’ve seen for ourselves that it is how we can find real-life solutions. In 2018, after over a year of work, the Partnership reached agreement on a shared vision for the future of the Madison and Gallatin Ranges. We submitted the Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement to the Custer Gallatin National Forest for consideration as it determines how to manage the Forest for the next 20 to 30 years. What is the Gallatin Forest Partnership Agreement all about? The agreement maps out a future for the Gallatin and Madison Ranges that protects the wildlife, clean water, wilderness, and recreation opportunities that are important to all of us. The agreement calls for a unique package of land management designations. These include recommended wilderness, watershed and recreation protections, and wildlife management areas spanning hundreds of thousands of acres in the Gallatin and Madison Ranges. Who supports the Agreement? Since it was released in 2018, over 800 individuals and 100 organizations and businesses have endorsed the agreement, including the Park, Gallatin, and Madison County Commissions. Mountain bikers, hunters, anglers, equestrians, conservationists, businesses, guest ranchers, and many others have signed on, because we all recognize that the agreement provides a real road map to protect what makes the Gallatin and Madison Ranges special.
    [Show full text]
  • Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report on the COVER Wolverine Tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem
    Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report ON THE COVER Wolverine tracks in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Photo by Jason Wilmot. Wolverine Conservation in Yellowstone National Park Final Report Authors John Squires Kerry Murphy US Forest Service US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Jackson Ranger District 800 East Beckwith Avenue PO Box 25 Missoula, Montana 59801 Jackson, Wyoming 83001 [email protected] [email protected] (formerly Yellowstone Center for Resources, With contributions from Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming) Robert M. Inman Wildlife Conservation Society Jason Wilmot Wolverine Program Field Office Northern Rockies Conservation Cooperative 222 East Main Street PO Box 2705 Lone Elk 3B Jackson, Wyoming 83001 Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] [email protected] Jeff Copeland Mark L. Packila US Forest Service Wildlife Conservation Society Rocky Mountain Research Station Wolverine Program Field Office 800 East Beckwith Avenue 222 East Main Street Missoula, Montana 59801 Lone Elk 3B [email protected] Ennis, Montana 59729 [email protected] Dan Tyers US Forest Service Doug McWhirter Gardiner Ranger District Wyoming Game and Fish Regional Office PO Box 5 2820 State Highway 120 Gardiner, Montana 59030 Cody, Wyoming 82414 [email protected] National Park Service Yellowstone National Park Yellowstone Center for Resources Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming YCR-2011-02 March 2011 Suggested citation: Murphy, K., J. Wilmot, J. Copeland, D. Tyers, J. Squires, R. M. Inman, M. L. Packila, D. McWhirter. 2011. Wolverine conservation in Yellowstone National Park: Final report. YCR-2011-02. National Park Service, Yellowstone National Park, Yellowstone Center for Resources, Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
    [Show full text]
  • Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana
    FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT JEFFERSON RIVER AT THREE FORKS, MONTANA Prepared by U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, OMAHA, NEBRASKA December 1971 Jefferson River at Three Forks, Montana ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Omaha, Nebraska 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed project would consist of the construction of an earth filled levee and a drainage collector ditch approximately lU ,700 feet in length along the northwest side of a small community. The location is at Three Forks in Gallatin County, Montana. 3. a. Environmental Impacts; Flood protection would be provided for a flood having a frequency of occurrence of once in a 100 years. A 28 acre loss of alternate land use would be required for levee alignment. A possibilit would exist for pollutants from adjacent land to accumulate in the collector ditch. A potential would exist for the collector ditch to develop aquatic growth. Five hundred feet of shelterbelt would be lost to levee construction. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Construction would effect the removal of 28 acres of land from alternative land use; collector ditch could act as a collector of pollutants; and construction of the levee would necessitate the removal of 500 feet of shelterbelt. Alternatives; Floodplain zoning, evacuation, flood proofing, reservoir construction, channel improvement, and ”no development” were considered. 5• Comments Received: City of Three Forks Bureau of Sport Fisheries & Wildlife, USDI Montana Department of Fish Bureau of Reclamation, USDI and Game Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Montana Department of Health Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Montana Highway Commission Bureau of Mines, USDI Soil Conservation Service, USDA Montana Water Resources Board National Park Service, USDI 6.
    [Show full text]
  • Work House a Science and Indian Education Program with Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park Work House a Science and Indian Education Program with Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park “Work House: Apotoki Oyis - Education for Life” A Glacier National Park Science and Indian Education Program Glacier National Park P.O. Box 128 West Glacier, MT 59936 www.nps.gov/glac/ Produced by the Division of Interpretation and Education Glacier National Park National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Revised 2015 Cover Artwork by Chris Daley, St. Ignatius School Student, 1992 This project was made possible thanks to support from the Glacier National Park Conservancy P.O. Box 1696 Columbia Falls, MT 59912 www.glacier.org 2 Education National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Glacier National Park Acknowledgments This project would not have been possible without the assistance of many people over the past few years. The Appendices contain the original list of contributors from the 1992 edition. Noted here are the teachers and tribal members who participated in multi-day teacher workshops to review the lessons, answer questions about background information and provide additional resources. Tony Incashola (CSKT) pointed me in the right direc- tion for using the St. Mary Visitor Center Exhibit information. Vernon Finley presented training sessions to park staff and assisted with the lan- guage translations. Darnell and Smoky Rides-At-The-Door also conducted trainings for our education staff. Thank you to the seasonal education staff for their patience with my work on this and for their review of the mate- rial.
    [Show full text]