DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment United States Department of Agriculture Environmental Forest Service Assessment 2014 Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project Musselshell Ranger District, Lewis and Clark National Forest Fergus County and Golden Valley County, Montana For More Information Contact: Lewis and Clark National Forest Musselshell Ranger District 406-566-2292 www.fs.usda.gov/lcnf/ 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 USDA’s 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. Environmental Assessment Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1 Location and Size of the Proposed Project Area .......................................................................................1 What Led Us to Develop This Proposal? ..................................................................................................1 Our Need for the Project................................................................................................................................1 Forest Plan Direction ................................................................................................................................2 Other Regulatory Direction .......................................................................................................................2 What Are We Proposing to Do? ....................................................................................................................4 What Will be Decided? .................................................................................................................................4 Public Involvement ........................................................................................................................................4 The Proposed Action and Alternatives ..........................................................................................................5 Alternative 1 – No Action .........................................................................................................................5 Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ...............................................................................................................5 Alternative 3 ..............................................................................................................................................6 Mitigation and Design Features Common to Alternatives 2 and 3 ...........................................................6 Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................11 Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................................12 Knutson-Vandenberg Opportunities .......................................................................................................12 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives...............................................................12 Effects to Fuels and Fire .........................................................................................................................13 Effects to Soils ........................................................................................................................................30 Effects to Sensitive Plants .......................................................................................................................42 Effects to Watershed Resources ..............................................................................................................46 Effects to Recreation and Scenery (Visuals) ...........................................................................................54 Effects to Silviculture ..............................................................................................................................57 Effects to Heritage ..................................................................................................................................77 Effects to Economics ..............................................................................................................................80 Effects to Range ......................................................................................................................................83 Effects to Wildlife ...................................................................................................................................85 Big Game ..............................................................................................................................................132 Bibliography including Literature Citations ..............................................................................................147 Agencies and Persons Consulted ...............................................................................................................180 Appendix A: Past, Present and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions .............................................................181 Appendix B: Compliance with Forest Plan Standards ..............................................................................183 MAPS ........................................................................................................................................................203 List of Tables Table 1. Fire intensity classes, flame length ranges and interpretations .....................................................15 Table 2. Percent of project area in flame length ranges for potential fire modeling scenarios ...................15 Table 3. Fire types and definitions ..............................................................................................................15 Table 4. Percent of project area in each potential fire type for modeled fire weather scenarios .................16 Table 5. Predicted flame lengths before and after treatment in alternatives 2 and 3 ...................................25 Table 6. Predicted fire types before and after treatment in alternative 2 .....................................................25 Table 7. Potential disturbance from proposed treatments ...........................................................................37 Table 8. Proposed units approaching or above 15% detrimental soil disturbance (DSD) for alternative 2 .........................................................................................................................................37 Table 9. Modeled ECA results for both action alternatives.........................................................................51 Table 10. Summary of measurement indicators for recreation and scenery ................................................57 Table 11. Summary of key vegetation attributes goals by ELU ..................................................................63 i Little Snowy Mountains Restoration Project Table 12. Mountain pine beetle hazard over time ....................................................................................... 66 Table 13. Summary of treatments by ELU ................................................................................................. 68 Table 14. ELU treatment goals summarized by stand for each ELU .......................................................... 68 Table 15. Summary of effects by treatment group ...................................................................................... 69 Table 16. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime ........................................................................................ 71 Table 17. Summary of treatments by ELU ................................................................................................. 74 Table 18. ELU treatment goals ................................................................................................................... 74 Table 19. Mountain pine beetle hazard overtime ........................................................................................ 76 Table 20. Total employment and income (2010 dollars) over the life of the project .................................. 82 Table 21. Table: Little Snowy habitat conditions ....................................................................................... 88 Table 22. Wildlife species summary ........................................................................................................... 94 Table 23. Wildlife effect indicator .............................................................................................................. 96 Table
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Contract for Deed Billings Montana
    Contract For Deed Billings Montana Dell remains unargued: she castaways her knitter waste too charmingly? Dresden Howie unthread some socage and feudalize his toiletry so barometrically! Moral and congested Alfred quartersaw almost presentably, though Hadleigh exteriorize his sandbag outsell. Must be a graduate within an accredited law school. Borders thousands of acres of BLM lands. One line you support do harm to provide sure that utilize tax bills are edge to you directly from possible tax collector. Which types of real estate cases so should handle water often? House hunting made easy. Montana foreclosed home auctions and Montana bank owned properties. Crow Agency, requesting that the Graham leases be canceled. Owners of exempted mobile homes will be notified by the department when they receive his property classification and appraisal notices. Never miss an opportunity remains a cheap home, by saving your searches. Are you spin you enough to delete this alert? The movies The Re. The petition was directed to the Billings Area Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is Yellowstone Country! Contact us to side working and one concept our agents to land access to power entire island of homes available. It was violent enough and had just want others to collect when something works. Since forfeiture often beside the concern remedy, notice form name be used in access all cases where a default is imminent. DISMISSED and the decision of the Acting Area Director is AFFIRMED. Did the District Court err in finding that question First Citizens Bank of Billings had no obligation to terrain that thirst the required deeds were placed in escrow by Double S Investors? The Departmentis charged with the responsibility of the management of bay trust obligations inthe best play of Indian beneficiaries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Flaxville Gravel As an Alluvial Plain...28
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1991 The Flaxville alluvial plain : a cartographic spatial analysis David Middleton 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 Middleton, David, "The Flaxville alluvial plain : a cartographic spatial analysis" (1991). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8961. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8961 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]. Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY Copying allowed as provided under provisions of the Fair Use Section of the U.S. COPYRIGHT LAW, 1976. Any copying for commercial purposes or financM gain may be under^en only with the author’s written consent. University of Montana The Flaxville Alluvial Plain: A Cartographic Spatial Analysis By David Middleton B.A., Eastern Washington University, 1986 B.A., Humboldt State University, 197 9 Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA 1991 Approved by: Chairman, Board of Examiners ^éan. Graduate School j y r u u S / 9 9 / DsOte UMI Number: EP39762 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Hunting Districts 315 and 580)
    CRAZY MOUNTAINS EMU (Hunting Districts 315 and 580) Description: This 1,708-square-mile EMU includes the Crazy Mountain Range and adjacent foothill and prairie habitats in south central Montana. The area is a mixture of private (78%) and public (22%) lands, including portions of both the Gallatin and Lewis and Clark national forests (16%), state school trust lands (DNRC – 5%), and USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM – 0.2%). Land ownership patterns within the boundary of the national forests are characterized by checkerboard ownership. The EMU contains two roadless areas encompassing 149,467 acres of public and private lands that offer wilderness-type recreation. However, much of this roadless area is not elk habitat. This EMU contains over 590,000 acres of occupied elk habitat (54% of EMU). National forest lands provide a large portion of spring, summer and fall elk habitat, but private lands in mountain foothill and sagebrush-grassland habitats provide over 80% of elk winter range during normal winters and virtually all of the available winter range during severe winters. Public Access: Access by road to elk habitat is limited in most of HD 580 where the checkerboard pattern of land ownership complicates management of access. With few exceptions, public access to elk habitat on the north and east slopes of the Crazies is controlled entirely by private landowners. There are only 3 points in HD 580 where the public may legally access national forest lands – the Big Timber Canyon road in the southeast corner, the Cottonwood Creek/Forest Lake road on the north end and Sixteenmile Creek in the northwest corner of the hunting district.
    [Show full text]
  • Quaternary and Late Tertiary of Montana: Climate, Glaciation, Stratigraphy, and Vertebrate Fossils
    QUATERNARY AND LATE TERTIARY OF MONTANA: CLIMATE, GLACIATION, STRATIGRAPHY, AND VERTEBRATE FOSSILS Larry N. Smith,1 Christopher L. Hill,2 and Jon Reiten3 1Department of Geological Engineering, Montana Tech, Butte, Montana 2Department of Geosciences and Department of Anthropology, Boise State University, Idaho 3Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology, Billings, Montana 1. INTRODUCTION by incision on timescales of <10 ka to ~2 Ma. Much of the response can be associated with Quaternary cli- The landscape of Montana displays the Quaternary mate changes, whereas tectonic tilting and uplift may record of multiple glaciations in the mountainous areas, be locally signifi cant. incursion of two continental ice sheets from the north and northeast, and stream incision in both the glaciated The landscape of Montana is a result of mountain and unglaciated terrain. Both mountain and continental and continental glaciation, fl uvial incision and sta- glaciers covered about one-third of the State during the bility, and hillslope retreat. The Quaternary geologic last glaciation, between about 21 ka* and 14 ka. Ages of history, deposits, and landforms of Montana were glacial advances into the State during the last glaciation dominated by glaciation in the mountains of western are sparse, but suggest that the continental glacier in and central Montana and across the northern part of the eastern part of the State may have advanced earlier the central and eastern Plains (fi gs. 1, 2). Fundamental and retreated later than in western Montana.* The pre- to the landscape were the valley glaciers and ice caps last glacial Quaternary stratigraphy of the intermontane in the western mountains and Yellowstone, and the valleys is less well known.
    [Show full text]
  • Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA)
    Schedule of Proposed Action (SOPA) 07/01/2013 to 09/30/2013 Lewis And Clark 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 Lewis And Clark National Forest, Occurring in more than one District (excluding Forestwide) R1 - Northern Region Little Belt Mountains Hazard - Recreation management In Progress: Expected:09/2013 11/2013 Jamey Lowdermilk Tree Removal - Facility management Comment Period Public Notice 406-791-7700 EA - Road management 05/29/2013 comments-northern- [email protected] *NEW LISTING* Est. Objection Period Legal Notice 07/2013 Description: The Little Belt Mountains Hazard Tree Removal Project proposes removal of hazardous trees along public roads and recreation and administrative facilities in the Little Belt Mountains. Web Link: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=42170 Location: UNIT - White Sulphur Springs Ranger District, Belt Creek Ranger District, Judith Ranger District, Musselshell Ranger District. STATE - Montana. COUNTY - Cascade, Judith Basin, Meagher, Wheatland. LEGAL - Not Applicable. Little Belt Mountains. Permit Reissuance for 6 - Grazing management In Progress: Expected:02/2013 02/2013 Tessa Donahue Pastures and 1 Fenceline - Scoping Start 04/01/2008 406-791-7710 Castle, Crazy, and Big Snowies Est. 215 Comment Period Legal [email protected] CE Notice 12/2012 s Description: CASTLES: Hereim Pasture S13 &23, T7N, R9E -Voldseth Pasture S13,T7N,R9E, S19 & 30,T7N,R10E - Rostad Pasture S23,T7N,R9E - IV Ranch Pasture S32,33,T9N,R9E CRAZIES: JCM Cattle Co S18,T6N,R11E BIG SNOWIES: Swanz Pasture S13, T11N,R18E Location: UNIT - White Sulphur Springs Ranger District, Judith Ranger District, Musselshell Ranger District.
    [Show full text]
  • Geology and Petroleum Potential Central Montana Province
    GEOLOGY AND PETROLEUM POTENTIAL CENTRAL MONTANA PROVINCE by Edwin K. Maughan] U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report OF 88-450 N 1989 This report is preliminary and has not been edited nor reviewed for conformity with U.S. Geological Survey standards and nomenclature. 1U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado 80225. CONTENTS LSrmODUCTON............................................................_ REGIONAL GEOLOGY......................................................................................................................1 STRATIGRAPHY.........................................................................^^ Cambrian .....................................................................................................................7 Ordovlcian...................................................................................................................7 Devonian ...................................................................................................................10 Mlsslssippian............................................................................................................ 10 Pennsylvanian ..........................................................................................................12 Permian and Triassic ................................................................................................17 Jurassic ......................................................................................................................21 Cretaceous ..................................................................................................................23
    [Show full text]
  • Musselshell/Golden Valley Counties Long Range Plan 2019
    Musselshell/Golden Valley Counties Long Range Plan Roundup Service Center Written May 2019 Section I Introduction Purpose The purpose of this plan is to create a working document that describes the natural resources of Musselshell and Golden Valley Counties, inventories resource problems as they exist currently, and prioritizes projects for NRCS cost assistance programs. The Roundup NRCS Field Office services both Musselshell and Golden Valley Counties. The Lower Musselshell Conservation District (LMCD) encompasses both counties as well. This long- range plan will be written to that scale and scope. There are many conservation partners in Musselshell and Golden Valley Counties: • Lower Musselshell Conservation District (LMCD) • Farm Service Agency (FSA) • Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks (FWP) • Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) • Montana State University Extension Service (MSU Extension) • Bureau of Land Management (BLM) • Deadman’s Basin Water Users Association (DMBWA) • County Weed Districts (Musselshell and Golden Valley) • United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) • Musselshell Watershed Coalition (MWC) • Delphia -Melstone Water Users Association (DMWUA) This plan will look at priorities for conservation work in Musselshell and Golden Valley Counties over the next 5 to 10 years. However, this plan should be reviewed annually and adjusted as necessary, based on current events and changed resource concerns. 1 | Page Section II Natural Resource Inventory Humans Musselshell and Golden Valley counties are located in Central Montana (see map), and have an area of 3,047 square miles. The counties share boundaries with the following seven counties: Petroleum and Fergus to the north; Wheatland to the west, Sweetgrass, Stillwater, and Yellowstone to the south; and Rosebud to the east.
    [Show full text]
  • F a R M S • T I M B E R • R a N C H E S • P L a N T a T I O
    FARMS • TIMBER • RANCHES • PLANTATIONS VOLUME 1 LAND TM INVESTOR www.republicranches.com • 888-726-2481 • 1 e Magazine of the American Landowner … As Well As ose Who Aspire to Join the Club. Proudly Sponsored By Proudly Sponsored By www.LandReport.com Fay Ranches Republic Ranches 2 • www.republicranches.com • 888-726-2481 www.republicranches.com • 888-726-2481 • 3 LandReport2pgAd.indd 1 6/3/15 11:16 PM VOLUME 1 LAND TM INVESTOR FARMS • TIMBER • RANCHES • PLANTATIONS TABLE OF CONTENTS FEATURES 6 Fay/Republic Alliance 14 Rural Land Trends In The Lone Star State 26 An Overview Of Texas Crop Production 35 Buying Property In New Mexico 39 Invest In Land Or Stuff A Mattress LAND 44 Finding Balance: Managing Ranches For Elk TM INVESTOR 50 Agricultural Land Lease Rates 54 Ranch Photography Techniques PUBLISHER: Fay Ranches, Inc. 58 Sportsman’s Corner 395 Gallatin Park Drive 68 Into The Great Wide Open: Dome Mtn. Ranch Bozeman, MT 59715 71 Investing In Timber Phone (406) 586-4001 74 Production Land Profits Fax (406) 586-4020 How To Buy A Ranch www.fayranches.com 76 86 A Tribute EDITOR: 88 Savvy Cattle Ranch Investing Scott Morrison 89 What We Stand For Playing Well With Others MANAGING EDITOR: 90 Julia Miller PROPERTIES MAGAZINE DESIGN: Morrison Creative Company, Inc. 8 Texas 34 New Mexico A SPECIAL THANK YOU: Amy Sowers, Drew Schug, Matt 36 Oklahoma Konen, Lauren Caselli, Meredith 38 Colorado Wilkinson, Heather Olsson, Anne 40 Wyoming Tyler, Greg Fay and Bryan Pickens 42 Montana ©2015 FAY RANCHES, INC. 70 North Carolina Idaho Cover Photo: Michael DeShore 72 80 Oregon 4 • www.fayranches.com • 800-238-8616 888-726-2481 • www.republicranches.com 800-238-8616 • www.fayranches.com • 5 In 2014, Fay Ranches and Texas land BOOTS ON THE GROUND brokerage firm Republic Ranches decided to At the end of the day, you’ll learn more in an hour with your boots on the ground alongside one of our knowledgeable land forge an alliance to better serve our clients professionals than in days of reading information online.
    [Show full text]
  • Davidbyrne1986
    N BSTRCT OF THE ThESIS OF in David 3. Byrne for the decree ofMaster of Science Geoloay oreserited on November 8.1S8 Title:Stratigraphy and DepositiorialHistory cf the Ucer Mississippian Big Snowy Formationin the Srowcrest Range. southwestern Montana. Redacted for privacy bstract approved Prof. Kjith F. Oles The Big Snowy Formation inthe Snowcrest Rangereflects in an middle Meramecian throughlate Chesteriari deposition intermittently si lied trough insouthwestern Montana.The name by the Kibbey Big Snowy Formation hasrecently been supplanted Formation and Lombard Limestone,which compose the lower two-thirds of the SnowcrestRange Group (new). The Kibbey is poorly exposed throughout theSnowcrest Range, but canbe in the subdivided into two informalunits based on measurements Blacktail Mountains, just northof the study area.The lower unit consists predominantly ofsilty and sandy dolostoneswhich represent deposition in an upperintertidal to lowersupratidal quartz arenites, environment.Calcite- and dolomite-cemented deposited on a lower shorefaceto lower intertidalenvironment, civerlies the compose the upper unit. The Kibbey unconforrnably the Mission Canyon Limestone arid isconformably averlairi by Lombard Limestone. Lombard carbonate sedimentationdenotes rapid basin shc'reface to the subsidence and consequentmigration of the Ribbey east in late tleramecian time. Four lithofacies are recognized in the Lombard, whichare, in ascending order of predominant stratigraphic occurrence,(1) lime mudstone,(2) fossiliferous wackestone-packstone,(3) calcareous shale, and (4) dolomiticlime inudetone lithofacies. The first two lithofacies displayan intertonquing relationship recordingepisodic differential subsidence in the trough. Rapid basinwide subsidence and consequent deposition In a stratified watercolumn are reflected in the last two 1 ithofacies. Seven major Late Mississippiantectono-sedimentary events are suggested by regional relationshipsof the Lombard lithofacies in the study area and correlativeunits in east-central Idaho and central Montana.
    [Show full text]
  • Fergus County, Montana (1900-1945)
    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses Graduate School 1997 The evelopmeD nt of a New Deal Land Policy: Fergus County, Montana (1900-1945). Melissa Gilbert Wiedenfeld Louisiana State University and Agricultural & Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses Recommended Citation Wiedenfeld, Melissa Gilbert, "The eD velopment of a New Deal Land Policy: Fergus County, Montana (1900-1945)." (1997). LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses. 6608. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_disstheses/6608 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses by an authorized administrator of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INFORMATION TO USERS This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer. The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. Li the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand corner and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
    [Show full text]
  • Montana Forest Insect and Disease Conditions and Program Highlights Œ 2006
    Montana United States Forest Insect and Disease Conditions Department of Agriculture and Program Forest Service Highlights Northern Region Forest Health 2007 Protection Report 08-1 Montana Department of Pine tussock moth in Natural Resources ponderosa pine and Conservation Forestry Division Lindgren funnel trap for Pine Engraver Beetles in thinned ponderosa pine MOONNTTAANNAA M FFoorreesstt IInnsseecctt aanndd DDiisseeaassee CCoonnddiittiioonnss aanndd PPrrooggrraamm HHiigghhlliigghhttss -- 22000077 Report 08-1 2008 Compiled By: Amy Gannon, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division Scott Sontag, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection Contributors: Gregg DeNitto, Ken Gibson, Marcus Jackson, Blakey Lockman, Scott Sontag, Nancy Sturdevant, USDA Forest Service, Northern Region, State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection; Brennan Ferguson, Amy Gannon, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division Data Summary: William O‘Donnell, USDA Forest Service, Region One, Engineering Map Production: Cartographics LLC Cover Photo: Pine tussock moth in ponderosa pine, courtesy of Scott Sontag, USDA Forest Service. Lindgren funnel trap for Pine Engraver Beetles in thinned ponderosa pine, courtesy of Amy Gannon, USDA Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Forestry Division i ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS.........................................................................................................1
    [Show full text]
  • GEOLOGIC MAP of the MUSSELSHELL 30' X 60' QUADRANGLE
    GEOLOGIC MAP OF THE MUSSELSHELL 30' x 60' QUADRANGLE CENTRAL MONTANA by Karen W. Porter and Edith M. Wilde Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology Open File Report MBMG 386 1999 Revised: 2/2005: New Text: unit descriptions 12/2005: Text revisions; minor map revisions This report has had preliminary reviews for conformity with Montana Bureau of Mines and Geology's technical and editorial standards. Partial support has been provided by the STATEMAP component of the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program of the U.S. Geological Survey under Contract Number 98-HQ- AG2080. GEOLOGIC SUMMARY The Musselshell quadrangle is located in central Montana in an area of rolling plains and high, deeply dissected benches bounded on the west by the Little Snowy Mountains. The Musselshell River crosses the quadrangle’s southeast corner. Areas of complex geologic structure involve Paleozoic and Mesozoic sedimentary rocks that are commonly intruded by alkalic dikes and sills. Gravel-covered benches obscure bedrock in some areas, but elsewhere deep incision by the Musselshell River drainage has exposed excellent stratigraphic sections and has revealed structural features. Geologic Structure In the Musselshell quadrangle, northwest- and northeast-trending structural grains intersect, reflecting the tectonic patterns described by Thomas (1974). Compressional events along each of these trends have formed small and large fold structures and numerous associated faults. Intersecting folds are observed in the northwest map area where the formerly mapped Flat Willow Syncline (Dobbin and Erdmann, 1955), near its culmination west of Durfee Creek Dome, is intersected by a small, northeast-trending anticline along the South Fork of Flatwillow Creek.
    [Show full text]