DOCSLIB.ORG

Soil Survey of Big Hole Area--Part of Beaverhead County, Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Soil Survey of Big Hole Area--Part of Beaverhead County, Montana Big Hole Area—Part of Beaverhead County, Montana How to Use This Soil Survey The detailed soil maps can be useful in planning the use and management of small areas. You can access the detailed soil maps at the Web Soil Survey (http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/). Go to the web site and follow the instructions to access the maps. Once the area of interest (AOI) has been selected, the “Soil Map” tab will provide a view of the detailed soil map and a legend that is hyperlinked to map unit descriptions. Click on the “Soil Data Explorer” tab to access the interpretations and reports. Report categories and subcategories include Suitabilities and Limitations for Use, Soil Properties and Qualities, and Soil Reports. Intrepretive data can also be accessed at the Soil Data Mart (http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/). See the Contents for sections of this publication that may address your specific needs. i Big Hole Area—Part of Beaverhead County, Montana National Cooperative Soil Survey This soil survey is a publication of the National Cooperative Soil Survey, a joint effort of the United States Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources Conservation Service has leadership for the Federal part of the National Cooperative Soil Survey. This survey was made cooperatively by the Natural Resources Conservation Service and the Montana Agricultural Experiment Station. It is part of the technical assistance furnished to the Beaverhead County Conservation District. Major fieldwork for this soil survey was completed in 2004. Soil names and descriptions were approved in 2005. Unless otherwise indicated, statements in this publication refer to conditions in the survey area in 2004. The most current official data are available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Soil maps in this survey may be copied without permission. Enlargement of these maps, however, could cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping. If enlarged, maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a larger scale. Nondiscrimination Statement The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (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 the USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Cover: Soils in the foreground are a complex of Foxgulch, Mooseflat, and Copperbasin. Soils in the middle ground are Beaverslide, Wisdom, and Shewag. This area is known as the Big Hole Valley. The Beaverhead Mountains are in the background. The old-time “beaverslides,” traditionally used to stack hay, are in the foreground. Additional information about the Nation’s natural resources is available online from the Natural Resources Conservation Service at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov. ii Big Hole Area—Part of Beaverhead County, Montana Contents How to Use This Soil Survey .......................................................................................i Alphabetical Index to Map Units ............................................................................... ix Foreword ................................................................................................................... xiii General Nature of the Survey Area .............................................................................. 1 History and Development ......................................................................................... 1 Geology.................................................................................................................... 4 Stream Morphology.................................................................................................. 5 Ground-water Resources ......................................................................................... 6 Mining ...................................................................................................................... 6 Metallic Minerals .................................................................................................. 6 Nonmetallic Minerals ........................................................................................... 6 Oil and Gas .............................................................................................................. 7 Seisicity .................................................................................................................... 7 Climate ..................................................................................................................... 7 How This Survey Was Made ........................................................................................ 8 Detailed Soil Map Units ........................................................................................... 11 3D—Libeg, stony-Monad complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes .................................... 12 4E—Butchhill gravelly loam, stony, 15 to 45 percent slopes .................................. 13 5C—Hairpin silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes .......................................................... 14 6D—Hairpin-Libeg, stony-Monad, stony complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes ............. 15 7E—Hairpin-Butchhill complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes ....................................... 16 8E—Libeg-Tiban, stony complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes ...................................... 17 9B—Bearmouth-Mooseflat-Finn complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ........................... 18 10B—Bearmouth very gravelly loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes .................................. 20 12E—Hairpin-Libeg, very stony complex, 4 to 45 percent slopes, slumped .......... 22 13B—Foxgulch-Mooseflat-Copperbasin complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ............... 23 15A—Foxgulch-Copperbasin-Wisdom complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ................. 24 16A—Tepete-Dunkleber-Mooseflat complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ...................... 26 19E—Hooligan-Inabnit complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes ....................................... 27 21E—Nieman, extremely stony-Sebud, very stony complex, 15 to 45 percent slopes .............................................................................................................. 29 22B—Bighole silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes ........................................................ 30 23B—Wisdom-Shewag-Mooseflat complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ........................ 31 24B—Beaverslide silt loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes ................................................. 32 27C—Bearmouth, stony-Bearmouth complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes .................... 33 29A—Donald silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ........................................................ 34 29C—Donald loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ............................................................. 35 30D—Donald loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes ........................................................... 35 31F—Sebud very cobbly loam, very stony, 15 to 60 percent slopes ...................... 36 32C—Philipsburg silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes .................................................. 37 33A—Proposal silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes ..................................................... 38 34A—Cowcamp-Proposal complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes .................................... 38 35A—Philipsburg-Mussigbrod complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes .............................. 39 35D—Philipsburg-Mussigbrod complex, 4 to 15 percent slopes ............................ 41 36C—Monaberg loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes ......................................................... 42 iii Big Hole Area—Part of Beaverhead County, Montana 37B—Wisdom-Bighole complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ......................................... 42 38B—Englejard-Mussigbrod-Monaberg complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ............... 44 39B—Shewag very gravelly loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes ....................................... 45 40B—Mooseflat loam, 0 to 4 percent slopes ......................................................... 46 41A—Proposal-Lehunt complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ......................................... 47 42A—Lehunt-Lehunt, saline, complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ................................ 48 43B—Redfish-Slagamelt-Shewag complex, 0 to 4 percent slopes ........................ 49 44C—Beaverslide-Cowcamp complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes................................ 51 45D—Hooligan-Monaberg complex, 2 to 15 percent slopes .................................. 52 46E—Barbarela-Rogert complex, 8 to 35 percent slopes ...................................... 53 47C—Libeg-Adel complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes .................................................. 54 47D—Libeg-Adel complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes ................................................ 55 48E—Libeg-Sebud, very stony complex, 15 to 35 percent slopes ......................... 56 49A—Wisdom-Proposal complex, 0 to 2 percent slopes ....................................... 57 50E—Libeg-Monad complex, 8 to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Big Hole River Fluvial Arctic Grayling
    FLUVIAL ARCTIC GRAYLING MONITORING REPORT 2003 James Magee and Peter Lamothe Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Dillon, Montana Submitted To: Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup And Beaverhead National Forest Bureau of Land Management Montana Chapter, American Fisheries Society Montana Council, Trout Unlimited Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service June 2004 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The following individuals and organizations contributed valuable assistance to the project in 2003. Scott Lula, Greg Gibbons, Zachary Byram, Tracy Elam, Tim Mosolf, and Dick Oswald of Montana Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP), provided able field assistance. Ken Staigmiller (FWP) collected samples for disease testing. Ken McDonald (FWP), provided administrative support, chaired the Fluvial Arctic Grayling Workgroup, reviewed progress reports and assisted funding efforts. Bob Snyder provided support as Native Species Coordinator. Dick Oswald (FWP) provided technical advice and expertise. Bruce Rich (FWP) provided direction as regional fisheries supervisor. Jim Brammer, Dennis Havig, Dan Downing, and Chris Riley (USFS) assisted with funding, provided housing for FWP technicians, and assisted with fieldwork. Bill Krise, and Ron Zitzow, Matt Toner, and the staff of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Bozeman Fish Technology Center maintained the brood reserve stock and transported grayling to the upper Ruby River. Jack Boyce, Mark Kornick and Jim Drissell, and crew of Big Springs Hatchery assisted with egg takes at Axolotl and Green Hollow II brood lakes, and transported eyed grayling eggs for RSI use in the upper Ruby River and to Bluewater State Fish Hatchery for rearing reaches. Gary Shaver, Bob Braund, and Dave Ellis from Bluewater State Hatchery raised and transported grayling to the Ruby River and the Missouri Headwaters restoration reaches.
    [Show full text]
  • Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic
    Memorandum of Understanding Concerning Montana Arctic Grayling Restoration August 2007 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING among: MONTANA FISH, WILDLIFE & PARKS (FWP) U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM) U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE (USFWS) U.S. FOREST SERVICE (USFS) MONTANA COUNCIL TROUT UNLIMITED (TU) MONTANA CHAPTER AMERICAN FISHERIES SOCIETY (AFS) YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (YNP) MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RECOVERY PROGRAM (AGRP) USDA NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE (NRCS) MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION (DNRC) concerning MONTANA ARCTIC GRAYLING RESTORATION BACKGROUND Montana’s Arctic grayling Thymallus arcticus is a unique native species that comprises an important component of Montana’s history and natural heritage. Fluvial (river dwelling) Arctic grayling were once widespread in the Missouri River drainage, but currently wild grayling persist only in the Big Hole River, representing approximately 4% of their native range in Montana. Native lacustrine/adfluvial populations historically distributed in the Red Rock drainage and possibly the Big Hole drainage have also been reduced in abundance and distribution. Arctic grayling have a long history of being petitioned for listing under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Most recently (in April 2007) the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) determined that listing of Arctic grayling in Montana under ESA was not warranted because it does not constitute a distinct population segment as defined by the ESA. On May 15th 2007, the Center for Biological Diversity announced its 60-day Intent to Sue the USFWS regarding the recent grayling decision. The Montana Arctic Grayling Recovery Program (AGRP) was formed in 1987 following declines in the Big Hole River Arctic grayling population, and over concerns for the Red Rock population.
    [Show full text]
  • Ruby River Access Sites Secured by Bruce Farling Hen the Topic of Stream Access Families, There Would Be No Formal Fishing Ago
    SPRING TROUT LINE 2016 Newsletter from the Montana Council of Trout Unlimited Ruby River access sites secured by Bruce Farling hen the topic of stream access families, there would be no formal fishing ago. Because of budget constraints, and the Ruby River is raised access sites for 40-plus river miles below some caused by limits imposed by Win Montana it’s often related the Vigilante Fishing Access Site a couple the Legislature, as well as demands at to absentee landowner James Cox miles downstream of the Ruby River Dam. some of the other 330 sites in FWP’s Kennedy from Atlanta and his 15-year Three county bridge popular fishing access legal and political efforts to prevent the rights-of-way provide site program, the public from accessing this great fishery. the only other points department didn’t However, not all stories about stream of access on the lower have adequate funding access coming from the Ruby Valley river. But the bridges to renew the leases for are as distressing as the Kennedy tale. have limited parking. the previous agreed Recently we can thank some civic-minded Plus, Mr. Kennedy upon price. The ranchers and, in part, Montana TU and has contested bridge Doornbos, Barnosky three of its chapters for a bit of good access in court and and Guillame families, news about the Ruby. made getting to the however, graciously Since the mid-1990s, three long- river at those spots agreed to lease the time ranching families in the valley have physically difficult access sites at a much- been leasing portions of their properties with his fencing schemes.
    [Show full text]
  • GREATER YELLOWSTONE WOLVERINE PROGRAM Progress Report – November 2008
    REATER ELLOWSTONE G Y WOLVERINE PROGRAM Practical, Science-based Solutions for Wolverine Conservation Progress Report – November 2008 Female Wolverine Missing Foot Reproduces Near Atlanta, Idaho. Wolverine Program Shifts Emphasis into Central Linkage Ecosystem Remote Camera Provides First Look at Den-related Behavior Montana Steps Forward with Metapopulation Management Strategy Spring 2008 Fixed-wing Den Surveys Yield Promising Results for Distribution & Monitoring Technique, Dispersal Data GPS Collars on 5 Adult Female Wolverines Provide Valuable Data Related to Winter Recreation Successful Den Captures In the Central Linkage Ecosystem Robert M. Inman, Mark L. Packila, Kristine H. Inman, Rob S. Spence, & Deborah McCauley, DVM. Wildlife Conservation Society • North America Program Wolverine Program Field Office • 222 Main Street • Lone Elk Suite 3B • Ennis, Montana 59729 U.S.A. 406.682.3437 www.wcs.org/globalconservation/northamerica/yellowstone/wolverine November 2008 Hello All, We have been quiet for a while, but busy. Since the 2007 Wolverine Workshop, we have been focused on implementing conservation actions made possible by the first phase of the program and developing a second phase of work. The Ph.D. program that Bob is undertaking in Sweden has allowed us to incorporate a great deal of knowledge from the 15 years of wolverine research experience accumulated by the Swedish Wolverine Project. Between these interactions, the ideas generated by the biologists who attended the wolverine workshop, and the pilot studies we conducted this past spring, we are ready to move forward. The section on the Central Linkage Ecosystem explains where we will focus our efforts, and the Spring Den Surveys section explains how.
    [Show full text]
  • June 2021 Meeting Minutes
    Big Hole Watershed Committee Monthly Meeting Minutes June 16th, 2021 – 7:00 pm at the Divide Grange Zoom option also provided In Attendance In-person: Pedro Marques, BHWC; Tana Nulph, BHWC; Ben LaPorte, BHWC; Jarrett Payne, MFWP; Jim Hagenbarth, Rancher/BHWC; Max Hanson, UM/BHWC Intern; Paul Cleary, Resident/BHWC; Sandy Cleary, Resident; Matt Norberg, DNRC; Betty Bowler, Resident; Tom Bowler, Resident; Hans Humbert, Rancher/BHWC; Randy Smith, Rancher/BHWC; Jim Dennehy, Butte-Silver Bow Water Dept./BHWC; Thomas Woolf, MFWP; Scott Reynolds, Resident; Steve Luebeck, Sportsman/BHWC; and John Reinhardt, Rancher/BHWC. Zoom: Charley (no last name given); Chris Edgington, MTU; and Paul Siddoway. Meeting Minutes BHWC monthly meetings are now held at the Divide Grange with a virtual (Zoom) option provided thanks to Southern Montana Telephone Company, who donated the internet service. Meeting minutes and recordings are available at https://bhwc.org/monthly-meetings/ (scroll down for meeting minutes archive). Printed copies are available during in-person meetings. Contact Tana Nulph, BHWC Associate Director, at [email protected] or (406) 267-3421 to suggest additions or corrections. Reports Streamflow/Snowpack Report as of June 16, 2021 – Matt Norberg, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation • Streamflows: Streamflows in the Big Hole River have generally been below to well below average since the start of April. The bulk of the snowpack has melted off and the river peaked earlier and lower than normal. Daily average flows for this time of year are well below normal Big Hole Watershed Committee, 2021 Page 1 levels with most of the gages reporting streamflow’s well below the 25th percentile with some even below the 10th percentile.
    [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 PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009
    WORK PLAN BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED UPDATED: January 2009 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE The purpose for this watershed plan is to: (1) Identify and document resource concerns within the watershed, both water and non- water related. (2) Prioritize those concerns (3) Outline objectives and methods of addressing those concerns (4) Provide guidance in the implementation of action plans and other associated watershed activities. This document will be maintained as a guide for watershed activities, and will be updated annually to reflect current circumstances in the watershed including reprioritization of concerns and addition of new areas of concentration. BEAVERHEAD RIVER WATERSHED COMMITTEE – MISSION STATEMENT The mission of the Beaverhead Watershed Committee is to seek an understanding of the watershed – how it functions and supports the human communities dependent upon it – and to build agreement on watershed-related planning issues among stakeholders with diverse viewpoints. Goals: . Provide a mechanism and forum for landowners, citizens, and agencies to work together to: . Identify problems and concerns both riparian and non-riparian, urban and rural. Reach agreement upon the priority of and methods for addressing those concerns. Act as a conduit between local interests and agencies for purposes of procuring the funding and non-monetary assistance necessary to begin systematically addressing priority concerns. Foster a cooperative environment where conflict is avoided, and work to resolve conflict as necessary for the watershed effort to move forward. Stay abreast of opportunities, issues, and developments that could be either beneficial or detrimental to the watershed or segments of the watershed. Keep stakeholders appropriately informed. Objectives: . Continuous Improvement – Maintain a broad range of active improvement projects/programs relating to diverse attributes of the watershed.
    [Show full text]
  • Flood Discharge-Frequency Hydrologic Analysis for the Big Hole River, Montana Hydrologic Analysis Report
    Flood Discharge-Frequency Hydrologic Analysis for the Big Hole River, Montana Hydrologic Analysis Report Future West March 15 2013 Flood Discharge-Frequency Hydrologic Analysis for the Big Hole River, Montana Hydrologic Analysis Report Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Background Information 1 1.2. Basin Description 2 1.3. Flood History 2 1.4. Big Hole River Flood Study 3 2. Past Studies and Existing Flood Data 4 2.1. SCS Flood Plain Management Study 4 2.2. FEMA Flood Insurance Study 5 2.3. Flood Inundation Potential Mapping and Channel Migration Zone Delineation 6 2.4. Irrigation Water Management 7 2.5. Total Maximum Daily Load 7 3. Hydrologic Analyses and Results 8 3.1. Regional Regression Equation Analysis 12 3.1.1. Basin Characteristics, Active Channel and Bankfull Width Regression Equations 12 3.1.2. Weighted Combinations 16 3.2. USGS Stream Gage Analyses 17 3.2.1. Single Station Statistical Gage Analysis 18 3.2.2. Two Station Comparison Gage Analysis 20 3.2.3. Regression Weighted Gage Analysis 29 3.2.4. Gage Analysis Results Comparison 30 3.3. Ungaged Sites on Gaged Streams 32 3.3.1. Log Interpolation of Gage Analyses 32 3.3.2. Drainage Area Gage Transfer 34 4. Hydrologic Discussion 38 4.1. Recommended Discharges 40 4.2. Comparison with Past Studies 46 5. Summary 48 6. References 49 Appendices Appendix A. Calculations of Drainage Areas Above Elevation 6000’ A Appendix B. Annual Peak Stream Flow Records B Appendix C. PKFQWin Input and Output Data C Appendix D. Two Station Comparison Method Calculations D Appendix E.
    [Show full text]
  • MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS of MINES and PROSPECTS in the DILLON Lox 2° QUADRANGLE, IDAHO and MONTANA
    DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY MAP SHOWING LOCATIONS OF MINES AND PROSPECTS IN THE DILLON lox 2° QUADRANGLE, IDAHO AND MONTANA By JeffreyS. Loen and Robert C. Pearson Pamphlet to accompany Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1803-C Table !.--Recorded and estimated production of base and precious metals in mining districts and areas in the Dillon 1°x2° guadrangle, Idaho and Montana [Production of other commodities are listed in footnotes. All monetary values are given in dollars at time of production. Dashes indicate no information available. Numbers in parentheses are estimates by the authors or by those cited as sources of data in list that follows table 2. <,less than; s.t., short tons] District/area Years Ore Gold Silver Copper Lead Zinc Value Sources name (s. t.) (oz) (oz) (lb) (lb) (lb) (dollars) of data Idaho Carmen Creek 18 70's-190 1 (50,000) 141, 226 district 1902-1980 (unknown) Total (50,000) Eldorado 1870's-1911 17,500 (350 ,000) 123, 226 district 1912-1954 (13,000) (8,000) (300,000) Total (650,000) Eureka district 1880's-1956 (13 ,500) 12,366 (2,680,000) 57,994 (4,000) ( 4,000 ,000) 173 Total (4,000,000) Gibbonsville 1877-1893 (unknown) district 1894-1907 (83,500) (1,670,000) 123, 226 1908-1980 ( <10 ,000) 123 Total (2,000,000) Kirtley Creek 1870's-1890 2,000 40,500 173 district 1890's-1909 (<10,000) 1910-1918 24,300 (500 ,000) 123 1919-1931 (unknown) 1932-1947 2,146 (75 ,000) 173 Total (620,000) McDevitt district 1800's.-1980 (80,000) Total (80,000) North Fork area 1800's-1980 (unknown) Total ( <10 ,000) Pratt Creek 1870's-1900 (50 ,000) district Total (50,000) Sandy Creek 1800 's-1900 (unknown) district 1901-1954 19,613 4,055 4,433 71,359 166,179 (310,000) 17 3, 200 Total (310 ,000) Montana Anaconda Range 1880's-1980 (<100,000) area Total (<100,000) Argenta district 1864-1901 (1 ,500 ,000) 1902-1965 311,796 72,241 562,159 604,135 18,189,939 2,009,366 5,522,962 88 Total (7,000,000) Baldy Mtn.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho, Oregon, Washington
    Ecoregions of the Pacific Northwest (Idaho, Oregon, Washington) Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems (and the type, quality, and quantity of environmental resources) are (USDA)–Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA–Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the Omernik, J.M., 1987, Ecoregions of the conterminous United States (map supplement): Annals of the Association of generally similar. They are designed to serve as a spatial framework for the research, assessment, Bureau of Land Management. The mapping was associated with an interagency effort to develop a common American Geographers, v. 77, no. 1, p. 118-125, scale 1:7,500,000. management, and monitoring of ecosystems and ecosystem components. These Level III and IV ecoregions, framework of ecological regions (McMahon and others, 2001). Although there are differences in the Omernik, J.M., 1995, Ecoregions – a framework for environmental management, in Davis, W.S. and Simon, T.P., eds., compiled at a scale of 1:250,000, revise and subdivide an earlier, smaller-scale national ecoregion map conceptual approaches and mapping methodologies used by the different federal agencies for developing Biological assessment and criteria-tools for water resource planning and decision making: Boca Raton, Florida, Lewis (Omernik, 1987). The ecoregions were identified by analyzing the spatial patterns and the composition of their own regional frameworks, these collaborative ecoregion projects were a step toward attaining Publishers, p. 49-62. biotic and abiotic phenomena that affect or reflect differences in ecosystem quality and integrity (Omernik, consensus and consistency in ecoregion frameworks for the entire nation. Omernik, J.M., 2004, Perspectives on the nature and definition of ecological regions: Environmental Management, v.
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest MONTANA
    visitvisit SouthWest MONTANA 2017 OFFICIAL REGIONAL TRAVEL GUIDE SOUTHWESTMT.COM • 800-879-1159 Powwow (Lisa Wareham) Sawtooth Lake (Chuck Haney) Horses (Michael Flaherty) Bannack State Park (Donnie Sexton) SouthWest MONTANABetween Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park lies a landscape that encapsulates the best of what Montana’s about. Here, breathtaking crags pierce the bluest sky you’ve ever seen. Vast flocks of trumpeter swans splash down on the emerald waters of high mountain lakes. Quiet ghost towns beckon you back into history. Lively communities buzz with the welcoming vibe and creative energy of today’s frontier. Whether your passion is snowboarding or golfing, microbrews or monster trout, you’ll find endless riches in Southwest Montana. You’ll also find gems of places to enjoy a hearty meal or rest your head — from friendly roadside diners to lavish Western resorts. We look forward to sharing this Rexford Yaak Eureka Westby GLACIER Whitetail Babb Sweetgrass Four Flaxville NATIONAL Opheim Buttes Fortine Polebridge Sunburst Turner remarkable place with you. Trego St. Mary PARK Loring Whitewater Peerless Scobey Plentywood Lake Cut Bank Troy Apgar McDonald Browning Chinook Medicine Lake Libby West Glacier Columbia Shelby Falls Coram Rudyard Martin City Chester Froid Whitefish East Glacier Galata Havre Fort Hinsdale Saint Hungry Saco Lustre Horse Park Valier Box Belknap Marie Elder Dodson Vandalia Kalispell Essex Agency Heart Butte Malta Culbertson Kila Dupuyer Wolf Marion Bigfork Flathead River Glasgow Nashua Poplar Heron Big Sandy Point Somers Conrad Bainville Noxon Lakeside Rollins Bynum Brady Proctor Swan Lake Fort Fairview Trout Dayton Virgelle Peck Creek Elmo Fort Benton Loma Thompson Big Arm Choteau Landusky Zortman Sidney Falls Hot Springs Polson Lambert Crane Condon Fairfield Great Ronan Vaughn Haugan Falls Savage De Borgia Plains Charlo Augusta CONTENTS Paradise Winifred Bloomfield St.
    [Show full text]
  • Big Hole Mountain Lakes Report 2008-2010
    Big Hole Mountain Lakes Report 2008-2010 Jim Olsen Montana, Fish Wildlife and Parks Project Number: F-113-R8-10, March 2011 Fisheries Division Federal Aid Job Progress Report MONTANA STATEWIDE FISHERIES MANAGEMENT FEDERAL AID PROJECT NUMBER: F-113 April 1, 2008 – April 1, 2011 Project Title: Montana Statewide Fisheries Management Job Title: Big Hole River Drainage Fisheries Management Abstract: A total of 45 mountain lakes in the Big Hole River drainage were surveyed from 2008-20101. The goal of this survey was to update existing information or survey lakes that have previously not been inventoried. The emphasis for much of the research covered in this report was to survey lakes that are actively managed through stocking. Most actively managed lakes are stocked with westslope cutthroat trout but rainbow trout are stocked in 1 lake and golden trout in 1 lake. The results of these lake survey are covered in this report. Waters Referred To: Ajax Lake Tenmile (upper) Lake Albino Lake Timberline Lake Baldy Lake Trapper Lake Bear Lake Unnamed Lake Berry Lake Unnamed Lake Brownes Lake Unnamed Lake Cherry Lake Upper Lena Lake Cowbone Lake Van Houten Lake Elbow Lake Violet Lake Englejard Lake Fish Lake Granite Lake Green Lake Hamby Lake Hidden Lake Highup Lake Johanna Lake Lake Agnes Lake Geneva Lena Lake Lily Lake Lower Seymour Lake Mudd Lake Oreamnos Lake Ovis Lake Peterson Lake Phlox Lake South Fork Reservoir Sand Lake Sawed Cabin Lake Schultz Reservoir Skytop Lake Stone (lower) Lake Stone (upper) Lake Surprise Lake Tenmile (lower) Lake Tenmile (middle) Lake Introduction The Big Hole is home to 137 named lakes and at least as many unnamed lakes and smaller ponds.
    [Show full text]