DOCSLIB.ORG

Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States United States Department of Description of “Ecological Agriculture Forest Service Subregions: Sections of Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B the Conterminous January 2007 United States” First Approximation Compiled by W. H. McNab, D. T. Cleland, J. A. Freeouf, J. E. Keys, Jr., G. J. Nowacki, and C. A. Carpenter Description of Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States Front Cover The U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2007 map “Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States.” Sections, the largest ecological unit of the subregion planning scale of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service National Hierarchical Framework of Ecological Units, are shown nested within provinces, the smallest unit of the ecoregion level. Sections are delineated primarily by evaluation and integration of physical and biological components including climate, physiography, lithology, soils, and potential natural communities. Not shown on the front cover map are subsection ecological units, which are subdivisions of sections. Together, sections and subsections form subregions that may be used for planning and assessments at regional scales. (Map electronic file provided by Alyssa M. Sloan, Michigan Technological University.) Abstract Preliminary descriptions are presented for the 190 section ecological units delineated on the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service 2007 map “Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States.” Brief descriptions of the section map units provide an abstract primarily of the climate, physiography, and geologic substrate that combine to form ecosystems with distinctive vegetation and other unique ecological characteristics. Many descriptions are illustrated with a photograph of the landform and vegetation found in the section. Compilers All compilers are affiliated with the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. W. Henry McNab is research forester, Southern Research Station, Asheville, NC; David T. Cleland is landscape ecologist, Eastern Regional Office; Rhinelander, WI; Jerry A. Freeouf is regional soil scientist, Rocky Mountain Regional Office, Lakewood, CO; James E. Keys, Jr. is National Coordinator for Integrated Surveys, Washington Office, Washington, DC; Gregory J. Nowacki is regional ecologist, Eastern Regional Office, Milwaukee, WI; and Constance A. Carpenter is sustainable forests coordinator, Northeastern Area, State & Private Forestry, Durham, NH. Citation McNab, W.H.; Cleland, D.T.; Freeouf, J.A.; Keys, Jr., J.E.; Nowacki, G.J.; Carpenter, C.A., comps. 2007. Description of ecological subregions: sections of the conterminous United States [CD-ROM]. Gen. Tech. Report WO-76B. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 80 p. Back Cover Selected mammals that inhabit one or more section map units and influence ecological processes therein. (Photos: National Park Service and USDA Forest Service.) January 2007 U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination Washington, DC 20250 Description of Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States Description of “Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States” First Approximation Compiled by W. Henry McNab David T. Cleland Jerry A. Freeouf James E. Keys, Jr. Gregory J. Nowacki Constance A. Carpenter Description of Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States Preface Acknowledgments Photographs and descriptions presented in this document were obtained from several sources. Information for many descriptions and photographs were presented in a previous publication of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, “Ecological Subregions of the United States: Section Descriptions” (McNab and Avers 1995). The compilers of this document acknowledge the contributions made by authors and photographers listed in the 1995 publication. A photograph supplements the description of about 80 percent of the sections. Many of the photographs in this document were used to illustrate another USDA Forest Service publication, General Technical Report (GTR) NE-321, “Experimental Forests and Ranges of the USDA Forest Service” (Adams et al. 2004). These photographs are identified as GTR NE-321, USDA Forest Service. We thank primary compiler M.B. Adams for providing those photographs, which she had obtained from other USDA Forest Service personnel. As a participant in the NE-321 publication, Andrew Youngblood of the Pacific Northwest Research Station provided additional photographs from his collection. Also, many photographs were obtained from Internet Web pages of agencies of the U.S. Government, including the Department of agriculture (Agricultural Research Service, Forest Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil and Water Conservation Districts); Department of Commerce (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration); and Department of Interior (National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service). Photographs from these agencies are in the public domain and the source of each was referenced. Additional photographs were provided by resource managers and specialists associated with State conservation organizations, by compilers of this document, and by other individuals who provided written permission allowing their use. Each photograph was the best available at the time this first approximation report was prepared, although the landscape depicted and quality, such as composition and resolution, of some was less than desired. Poor-quality and unrepresentative photographs will be replaced when better images become available. Disclaimer The use of trade, firm, or corporation names in this publication is for the information and convenience of the reader. Such use does not constitute an official endorsement or approval by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Forest Service of any product or service to the exclusion of others that may be suitable. Considerable other descriptive information was available for these ecosystems, particularly for soil, natural disturbances, and vegetation; it could not be utilized, however, due to the limited time and resources available for preparation of this first approximation report. Printing this electronic report This report is available only in electronic form as one of several data, graphic, or text documents recorded on a CD-ROM that collectively comprise the 2007 USDA Forest Service publication General Technical Report WO-76: "Ecological Subregions: Sections and Subsections of the Conterminous United States." The report is formatted as a conventional USDA Forest Service printed publication, including the front and back cover. It is distributed as an electronic file in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To view and print this publication, you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available at no cost via the Internet from Adobe Systems, Inc. A conventional paper copy of this electronic publication may be obtained by printing the PDF file on both sides of paper measuring 8.5 by 11 inches, and binding. Description of Ecological Subregions: Sections of the Conterminous United States Contents Overview ........................................................................................................................1 211-Northeastern Mixed Forest Province.................................................................... 4 211A-Aroostook Hills and Lowlands Section ............................................................... 4 211B-Maine-New Brunswick Foothills and Lowlands Section ..................................... 4 211C-Fundy Coastal and Interior Section.................................................................... 4 211D-Central Maine Coastal and Embayment Section................................................ 4 211E-St. Lawrence and Champlain Valley Section ..................................................... 4 211F-Northern Glaciated Allegheny Plateau Section................................................... 4 211G-Northern Unglaciated Allegheny Plateau Section .............................................. 5 211I-Catskill Mountains Section .................................................................................. 5 211J-Tug Hill Plateau-Mohawk Valley Section ............................................................ 5 212-Laurentian Mixed Forest Province........................................................................ 5 212H-Northern Lower Peninsula Section..................................................................... 5 212J-Southern Superior Uplands Section.................................................................... 5 212K-Western Superior Uplands Section .................................................................... 6 212L-Northern Superior Uplands Section.................................................................... 6 212M-Northern Minnesota and Ontario Section .......................................................... 6 212N-Northern Minnesota Drift and Lake Plains Section............................................. 6 212Q-North Central Wisconsin Uplands Section ......................................................... 6 212R-Eastern Upper Peninsula Section ...................................................................... 7 212S-Northern Upper Peninsula Section..................................................................... 7 212T-Northern Green Bay Lobe Section ....................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SW CASC Science Agenda 2013-2018
    Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Southwest Climate Science Center 2013 Strategic Science Agenda Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3 Relation of the Southwest Climate Science Center to the Stakeholder Advisory Committee and Partners 5 Climatic Context of the Southwest ............................................................................................................... 6 Vision ........................................................................................................................................................... 13 Guiding Principles ....................................................................................................................................... 13 Goals of the Southwest Climate Science Center ......................................................................................... 14 Leadership goal ............................................................................................................................ 14 Research goal ............................................................................................................................ 14 Synthesis goal ............................................................................................................................ 15 Critical Information Needs .........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Major Landforms and Their Economic Significance MODULE - 2 Changing Face of the Earth 7 Notes MAJOR LANDFORMS and THEIR ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE
    Major Landforms and their Economic Significance MODULE - 2 Changing face of the Earth 7 Notes MAJOR LANDFORMS AND THEIR ECONOMIC SIGNIFICANCE You have learnt in the previous lesson that the landforms found on the earth’s surface are the result of interplay between internal and external forces. The soft rocks are easily worn down by these forces. While the relatively harder rocks are not so easily worn down. Therefore, rocks have a great influence on the landforms developed in an area. The internal forces are perpetually elevating the earth’s surface and the external forces about which you will study in the next lessons are constantly wearing down such elevations to make ,the surface level. This is how various landforms are formed by constant action of agents of gradation. These landforms are not only the physical features of the earth’s surface but also the basis of human civilization. The major landforms found on the earth’s surface are mountains, plateaus and plains. In this lesson, we will study the major landforms of the earth and their economic importance for us. OBJECTIVES After studying this lesson you will be able to : differentiate among the three major landforms found on the earth’s surface; explain the process of formation of various landforms with the help of illustrations; classify mountains on the basis of their mode of formation; discuss the usefulness of mountains to man; list different types of plateaus and describe their economic significance; GEOGRAPHY 121 MODULE - 2 Major Landforms and their Economic Significance Changing face of the Earth enumerate major types of plains and explain their influence on human life; locate major mountains, plateaus and plains on the outline map of the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Ecoregions of Idaho
    1 0 . C o l u m b i a P l a t e a u 1 3 . C e n t r a l B a s i n a n d R a n g e Ecoregion 10 is an arid grassland and sagebrush steppe that is surrounded by moister, predominantly forested, mountainous ecoregions. It is Ecoregion 13 is internally-drained and composed of north-trending, fault-block ranges and intervening, drier basins. It is vast and includes parts underlain by thick basalt. In the east, where precipitation is greater, deep loess soils have been extensively cultivated for wheat. of Nevada, Utah, California, and Idaho. In Idaho, sagebrush grassland, saltbush–greasewood, mountain brush, and woodland occur; forests are absent unlike in the cooler, wetter, more rugged Ecoregion 19. Grazing is widespread. Cropland is less common than in Ecoregions 12 and 80. Ecoregions of Idaho The unforested hills and plateaus of the Dissected Loess Uplands ecoregion are cut by the canyons of Ecoregion 10l and are disjunct. 10f Pure grasslands dominate lower elevations. Mountain brush grows on higher, moister sites. Grazing and farming have eliminated The arid Shadscale-Dominated Saline Basins ecoregion is nearly flat, internally-drained, and has light-colored alkaline soils that are Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and America into 15 ecological regions. Level II divides the continent into 52 regions Literature Cited: much of the original plant cover. Nevertheless, Ecoregion 10f is not as suited to farming as Ecoregions 10h and 10j because it has thinner soils.
    [Show full text]
  • 6800-Year Vegetation and Fire History in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1995 6800-year vegetation and fire history in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana Anne Elizabeth Karsian 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 Karsian, Anne Elizabeth, "6800-year vegetation and fire history in the Bitterroot Mountain Range Montana" (1995). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 6683. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/6683 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]. Anne- K a r s j a n i Maureen and Mike MANSFIELD LIBRARY TheM University ontana of Permission is granted by tlie author to reproduce this material in its entirety, provided that tliis material is used for scholarly purposes and is properly cited in published works and repoits. * * Please check "Yes'' or “No “ and provide signature Yes, I grant permission ..\1 No, I do not grant permission ----- Author’s Signature Date; ' n 1 Any copying for commercial purposes or financial gain may be undertaken only with ^he author’s explicit consent. ■ Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A 6800-YEAR VEGETATION AND FIRE HISTORY IN THE BITTERROOT MOUNTAIN RANGE, MONTANA By ANNE ELIZABETH KARSIAN Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSHY OF MONTANA Department of Forestry 1995 Approved by: t' z o Chairperson 7 ^ ^ ^ /.
    [Show full text]
  • Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys
    Birding in the Missoula and Bitterroot Valleys Five Valleys and Bitterroot Audubon Society Chapters are grassroots volunteer organizations of Montana Audubon and the National Audubon Society. We promote understanding, respect, and enjoyment of birds and the natural world through education, habitat protection, and environmental advocacy. Five Valleys Bitterroot Audubon Society Audubon Society P.O. Box 8425 P.O. Box 326 Missoula, MT 59807 Hamilton, MT 59840 www.fvaudubon.org/ www.bitterrootaudubonorg/ Montana Audubon P.O. Box 595 Helena, MT 59624 406-443-3949 www.mtaudubon.org Status W Sp Su F Bird Species of West-central Montana (most vagrants excluded) _ Harlequin Duck B r r r Relative abundance in suitable habitat by season are: _ Long-tailed Duck t r r c - common to abundant, usually found on every visit in _ Surf Scoter t r r r moderate to large numbers _ White-winged Scoter t r r r u - uncommon, usually present in low numbers but may be _ Common Goldeneye B c c c c _ missed Barrow’s Goldeneye B u c c c _ o - occasional, seen only a few times during the season, not Bufflehead B o c u c _ Hooded Merganser B o c c c present in all suitable habitat _ Common Merganser B c c c c r - rare, one to low numbers occur but not every year _ Red-breasted Merganser t o o _ Status: Ruddy Duck B c c c _ Osprey B c c c B - Direct evidence of breeding _ Bald Eagle B c c c c b - Indirect evidence of breeding _ Northern Harrier B u c c c t - No evidence of breeding _ Sharp-shinned Hawk B u u u u _ Cooper’s Hawk B u u u u Season of occurrence: _ Northern Goshawk B u u u u W - Winter, mid-November to mid-February _ Swainson’s Hawk B u u u Sp - Spring, mid-February to mid-May _ Red-tailed Hawk B c c c c Su - Summer, mid-May to mid-August _ Ferruginous Hawk t r r r F - Fall, mid-August to mid-November _ Rough-legged Hawk t c c c _ Golden Eagle B u u u u This list follows the seventh edition of the AOU check-list.
    [Show full text]
  • Level IV Ecoregions of Montana
    DRAFT 2 Ecoregions denote areas of general similarity in ecosystems and in the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources; they are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. By recognizing the spatial differences in the capacities and potentials of ecosystems, ecoregions stratify the environment by its Ecoregions of Montana probable response to disturbance (Bryce and others, 1999). These general purpose regions are critical for Second Edition structuring and implementing ecosystem management strategies across federal agencies, state agencies, and nongovernment organizations that are responsible for different types of resources within the same 116° 115° 114° 113° 112° 111° 110° 109° 108° 107° 106° 105° 104° geographical areas (Omernik and others, 2000). ° 49° The approach used to compile this map is based on the premise that ecological regions can be identified 49 BRITISH COLUMBIA 42d through the analysis of the spatial patterns and the composition of biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect ALBERTA SASKATCHEWAN 42k or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Wiken, 1986; Omernik, 1987, 1995). These 15d CANADA 15h 41b 42q 42n sa 17r ATE S phenomena include geology, physiography, vegetation, climate, soils, land use, wildlife, and hydrology. u F 41a 42l UNITED ST n l Plentywood a a 42n 42r 42m Scobey c th 42r o e The relative importance of each characteristic varies from one ecological region to another regardless of o a 42r K d R e i 42r 17r the hierarchical level. A Roman numeral hierarchical scheme has been adopted for different levels of k v a 41c e r Fresno 15h L 42i 42b 42d ecological regions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Tennessee River Basin
    The Tennessee River Basin he Tennessee River winds its way for roughly geography and geology in the region help to explain 650 miles through Tennessee, Alabama, why the area harbors one of the most biologically TMississippi, and back into Tennessee, before diverse freshwater ecosystems in the world. reaching Kentucky where it empties into the The immense biodiversity of native and endangered Ohio River. In total the Basin encompasses over species in the Tennessee River Basin (TRB) has driven 40,000 square miles, covering five major regional efforts— engaging multiple agencies physiographic provinces: the Blue Ridge, and stakeholders to ensure the protection the Valley and Ridge, the Appalachian of this unique landscape for generations Plateau, the Interior Low Plateaus, to come. and the Coastal Plain. The extent of the Basin’s reach vast diversity of Eastern Hellbender - because of their preference for clean streams and rivers, hellbenders serve as indicators of stream health. The presence of young and adults is synonymous with good water quality. To learn more about the Tennessee River Basin Network and see how you or your organization can be involved please visit http://applcc.org/projects/trb. FACT SHEET: THE TENNESSEE RIVER BASIN NETWORK Tennessee River Basin Network Dedicated to the conservation of this unique region and The Network strives to E RIIV national treasure, the Tennessee River Basin Network conserve and restore aquatic SE ER S B EE A (hereafter Network) is a partnership of states, cities, counties, resources, particularly areas N A SS N N II federal agencies, academic organizations, business, and of high biologic diversity EE NN TT other non-governmental organizations dedicated to throughout the region, enhancing the health of the watersheds and biological improve water quality, resources within the Tennessee River Basin through foster increasing stewardship N increased regional collaboration.
    [Show full text]
  • Owyhee High Plateau Major Land Resource Area (MLRA)
    MLRA 25 – Owyhee High Plateau (Utah portion) MLRA 25 – Owyhee High Plateau (Utah portion) Ecological Zone Upland Mountain High Mountain Subalpine Precipitation (inches) 12-17 inches 16-22 inches 16-22 inches 20-27 inches Elevation 5,000 -7,000 6,000 – 8,600 8,000-9,000 9,000 - 9,300 Soil Moisture Regime Typic Xeric Typic Xeric Typic Xeric Udic Soil Temp Regime Mesic Frigid Cryic Cryic Freeze free Days 80-120 60 - 90 30 - 40 20 -35 Mountain mahogany, Sagebrushes and Mountain big Aspen, Mountain big Subalpine Fir, browse Notes sagebrush sagebrush Subalpine sagebrush 300 – 500 and 1,100-2,100 and 2,400-2,500 lbs/ac 800 – 1000 lbs.ac 400-600 lbs/ac All values in this table are approximate and should be used as guidelines. Different combinations of temperature, precipitation and soil type can place an ecological site into different zones. Major Land Resource Area (MLRA) D25 D25 - Owyhee High Plateau E47A - and Ui D28A 030 60 120 Miles Great Salt 1:3,000,000 Lake Area 25—Owyhee High Plateau This area is in Nevada (52 percent),Idaho (29 percent), Oregon (16 percent), and Utah (3 percent). It makes up about 28,930 square miles (74,960 square kilometers). The city of Elko, Nevada, which is along Interstate 80, occurs in this MLRA. The Humboldt-Toiyabe and Sawtooth National Forests and numerous wilderness study areas also occur in this MLRA. Most of the wilderness study areas are in the high desert canyon lands of southern Idaho. The Duck Valley, South Fork, Ruby Valley, and Te-Moak Indian Reservations are in this area.
    [Show full text]
  • By Nevin M. Fenneman DEPARTMENT of GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY of CINCINNATI Communicated by W
    GEOLOGY: N. M. FENNEMAN 17 PHYSIOGRAPHIC SUBDIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES By Nevin M. Fenneman DEPARTMENT OF GEOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI Communicated by W. M. Davis, November 24, 1916 Various attempts at subdivision of the United States into physio- graphic provinces have been made, beginning with- that of Powell.' The Association of American Geographers, recognizing the fundamental importance of this problem, appointed a committee in 1915 to prepare a suitable map of physiographic divisions. The committee consists of Messrs. M. R. Campbell and F. E. Matthes of the U. S. Geological Survey and Professors Eliot Blackwelder, D. W. Johnson, and Nevin M. Fenneman (chairman). The map herewith presented and the ac- companying table of divisions constitute the report of that committee. The same map on a larger scale (120 miles to the inch) will be found in Volume VI of the Annals of the Association of American Geographers, accompanying a paper by the writer on the Physiographic Divisions of the United States. In that paper are given the nature of the bound- ary lines and those characteristics of the several units which are believed to justify their recognition as such. Though the above-named com- mittee is not directly responsible for the statements there made, many of them represent the results of the committee's conferences. The paper as a whole is believed to represent fairly well the views of the committee, though in form the greater part of it is a revision of a former publication.2 The basis of division shown on this map, here reproduced, is physio- graphic or, as might be said in Europe, morphologic.
    [Show full text]
  • Geological Survey
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BULLETIN OF THE UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY No. 17O t, WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1900 UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SUKVEY CHARLES D. WALCOTT, DIRECTOR SURVEY OF THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN IDAHO AND MONTANA FROM THE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY TO THE CREST OF THE BITTERROOT MOUNTAINS BY RICHARD TJRQUHART GOODE WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1900 CONTENTS. Page. Letter of transmittal - _. .... _..._......_....--..,.. ........... 9 Instructions ...............................1...^.......................... 11 Boundary lines.-. ....--..........---.-.--..-.-..-............-.-.-..---- 15 Account of operations ...........................-._._........... .--. 18 Latitude, longitude, base line, azimuth, and triangulation _...__.._.._..___ 21 Latitude _...-. .--.---.-... -.....-..-..........._................ 21 Longitude.........---.-..-..-..-.....-..--.. ............. ....-.-. 23 Spokane base line................J......................__._._.. 25 Azimuth .__.---.--.-.-.....___.. _..--...__.__.__.. ._._........--. 25 Triangulation ................... __........._.'......._._._.....-- 29 Transit and stadia work.................................................. 40 Monuments _. ..;......____.._._.,_._._._....__,, ._.....__. ..-..... 47 The international boundary west of the summit of the Eocky Mountains, and the Mooyie Trail monument..............................._..... 58 Financial statement ................... °........................_.i........ 63 Index ..............J.....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land
    Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land Map of the Curlew Mine by Rick Schmidt in MBMG mineral property files Open-File Report MBMG 484 Phyllis A. Hargrave Catherine McDonald Michael D. Kerschen John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 Abandoned-Inactive Mines on Bitterroot National Forest-Administered Land Open-File Report MBMG 484 October 2003 Phyllis A. Hargrave Catherine McDonald Michael D. Kerschen John J. Metesh Robert Wintergerst Prepared for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service-Region 1 CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................... iii LIST OF TABLES ............................................................ iii 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................1 1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................1 1.2 Abandoned and Inactive Mines Defined . 2 1.3 Health and Environmental Problems at Mines . 2 1.3.1 Acid Mine Drainage ...........................................3 1.3.2 Solubilities of Selected Metals ...................................3 1.3.3 The Use of pH and SC to Identify Problems . 5 1.4 Methodology ........................................................5 1.4.1 Data Sources .................................................5 1.4.2 Pre-Field Screening............................................6 1.4.3 Field Screening ...............................................7 1.4.4 Field Methods ................................................8
    [Show full text]
  • Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report
    National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Report Glacier National Park Geologic Resource Evaluation Geologic Resources Division Denver, Colorado U.S. Department of the Interior Washington, DC Table of Contents List of Figures .............................................................................................................. iv Executive Summary ...................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 3 Purpose of the Geologic Resource Evaluation Program ............................................................................................3 Geologic Setting .........................................................................................................................................................3 Glacial Setting ............................................................................................................................................................4 Geologic Issues............................................................................................................. 9 Economic Resources..................................................................................................................................................9 Mining Issues..............................................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]