DOCSLIB.ORG

Seeley Lake Community Council

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Residents of the Plan Area Seeley Lake Community Council (past and current) Sam Bolton Jay Kolbe Ron Cox Addrien Marx Carol Evans Mary Ann Morin George Frasca Val Natale Jack Greenwood Gary Pelletier Jon Haufler Cheryl Thompson Walt Hill Diane Weatherman Steve Johnson Natalie Wiseheart Missoula Consolidated Planning Board (at time of review) Don MacArthur (chair) Heidi Kendall Jennifer Clary John DiBari Tim Ibey Jonathon Haber Jerry Petasek Don Latham Jerry O’Connell Tim Skufca Kelly Durbin Missoula Board of County Commissioners Michele Landquist Jean Curtiss Bill Carey State and Federal Agencies and Large Landowners including: Seeley Lake Ranger District, Lolo National Forest, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Department of Fish Wildlife and Parks, Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Plum Creek Timber Company Missoula County Office of Rural Initiatives Missoula County Departments Numerous Other Plan Participants Seeley Lake Regional Plan-Adopted October 20, 2010 TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1: Introduction ………………………………………………………..1 . Chapter 2: History and Culture………………………………………………..6 Chapter 3: Natural Resources………………………………………………...12 Chapter 4: Economy…………………………………………………………….33 Chapter 5: Population and Housing………………………………………….38 Chapter 6: Community Services and Facilities…………………………....44 Chapter 7: Land Use…………………………………………………………….56 Chapter 8: Plan Implementation………………………………………………83 Maps 1. Plan Area Boundaries 2. Land Ownership 2A. Land Ownership with Montana Legacy Lands 2B. Land Ownership with Conservation Easements 3. Agricultural Soils 4. Steep Slopes 5. Wildland Urban Interface 6. Floodplain 7. Existing Zoning Districts 8. Water District and Sewer District 9. Fire Districts 10. School Districts 11. County Parks 11A. Recreation Sites 12. Land Use Designations-Plan Area 12A. Land Use Designations-North Seeley 12B. Land Use Designations-Downtown Seeley Lake 12C. Land Use Designations-Placid Lake 12D. Land Use Designations-Clearwater Junction 12E. Land Use Designations and Ownership 12F. Land Use Designations and Special Blocks Appendices Appendix A: Species of Special Concern Appendix B: Supporting Resource Assessment Documents Appendix C: Action Strategies Table Resources and References Seeley Lake Regional Plan-Adopted October 20, 2010 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION The Seeley Lake Regional Plan Area is primarily located in the Clearwater River watershed, with forested mountain ranges on either side and rivers, streams, and a chain of lakes running through the valley. The area is home to a rich and abundant diversity of plant communities and wildlife. It is also situated at the southern end of the 700 mile-long Crown of the Continent Ecosystem and provides crucial connections for wildlife as they move across their respective habitats. The area offers spectacular views, open spaces, and excellent year-round recreational opportunities that are treasured by its residents. In addition to traditional forest products and agriculture, tourism is increasingly contributing to the economy. Over the last two decades, the Plan Area has experienced increased visitation, recreation, and home construction. The Seeley Lake Regional Plan is an effort initiated by the Seeley Lake Community Council to outline a vision for the future of the community. That vision must translate into an overall plan to guide land use decisions in a manner that enhances the Seeley Lake area as a place to live, work, and recreate while retaining the area’s character and conserving its unique natural resources. PURPOSE The Seeley Lake Regional Plan is a non-regulatory document intended to provide policy guidance on how growth and development should occur in the Plan Area, to inform land use decisions, and to provide specific measures for meeting the community’s land use goals. The Plan suggests how best to address land use demands in the Seeley Lake community while protecting its valued characteristics. The need for an updated Plan and implementation strategy is the result of several factors: growth pressure; recreational pressure; increased housing costs for year-round residents; possible changes from timber management to residential use for large areas; the declining economic role of timber harvest and increasing role of tourists and part time residents to the economy; increased demands for recreational uses; and water quality concerns. As with any regional planning effort, this Plan functions as an overview of the Plan Area’s issues and a general guide for future planning of the area. Additional site specific analyses would be needed for new development. PLANNING HISTORY There is a long history of planning and resident involvement in planning efforts in the Seeley region, dating back to the 1975 Missoula County Comprehensive Plan, which included a citizen’s advisory group from Seeley Lake. The Seeley Lake Community Council was formed in 1987. It worked to define community goals for the 1989 Seeley Lake Area Comprehensive Plan Amendment Regional Plan, which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. At that time the Community Council also adopted a resolution with the theme “Working Together Works” as a means for solving community problems. Seeley Lake Regional Plan-Adopted October 20, 2010 1 In response to increased development in the area, the Seeley Lake Community Council initiated its own planning efforts in 2001. The Council worked intently and extensively to produce the 2002 Community Development Guide, including a land use map. While not adopted as County policy, this Guide provided a clear articulation of the values and goals of the community. That work contributes to the basis for much of this Regional Plan. In 2006, the Missoula Board of County Commissioners directed Rural Initiatives staff to help the Community Council revise and update a Regional Plan for the Seeley area. PLAN AREA The Seeley Lake Community Council boundary corresponds to the Missoula County Elementary School #34 boundary. Previous planning efforts have been focused within this boundary. Since the significant natural resources of the area are best analyzed on a watershed basis, the boundary for this Plan was expanded to cover the entire Clearwater River watershed within Missoula County, extending south to Clearwater Junction and incorporating a portion of the Greenough area. The Plan Area also includes that portion of Missoula County north of Highway 200 that lies east of the Clearwater Valley watershed. (See Map 1.) Neither additional area is currently represented by a separate Community Council. They are located within a portion of the Sunset Hill School District, which serves the community of Greenough. The plan area is approximately 388 sq. miles in size. The hydrologic divide between the Clearwater and the Swan River drainage basins forms the northern boundary of the Plan Area. The western boundary is the watershed divide along the Mission Mountains. Neighboring Powell County generally constitutes the eastern boundary. The Plan Area reaches to the southern extent of the Clearwater River watershed, including the Clearwater Junction area. Montana Highway 83 is the major north-south route through the planning area, connecting to the Swan Valley and communities to the north. A portion of Montana Highway 200 runs through the Clearwater Junction portion of the Plan Area. Highway 200 serves as the transportation route connecting Seeley Lake to Missoula and communities to the east, such as Ovando and Lincoln. Approximately 55% of the land in the Plan Area is publicly owned and managed, primarily by the United States Forest Service, Lolo National Forest. An additional 35% of the land is owned by Plum Creek Timber Company. Private individuals own the remaining 9%. (See Maps 2 and 2A.) Much of the National Forest and Plum Creek land is grouped into large tracts in the Seeley Lake area, rather than the checkerboard pattern commonly seen in other areas of western Montana.1 There are currently 7,309 acres of land in the Plan Area under conservation easements. Much of this land is located in the area of the Blackfoot Clearwater Wildlife Management Area and Clearwater Junction. (See Map 2B.) COMMUNITY VALUES The values and concerns expressed by the community have been remarkably consistent over the past 30 years, revolving around the natural resources of the valley, rural 1 For updated information about ownership or other data referenced in the Plan, please contact the Missoula County Rural Initiatives Office. Seeley Lake Regional Plan-Adopted October 20, 2010 2 character, and the desire to balance growth with protection of the qualities that the community values. Year-round residents, seasonal visitors and seasonal residents treasure the forested areas, clean clear streams and lakes, fresh air, fish and wildlife populations, and views. The community also values its natural amenities as economic and recreational resources that need to remain balanced and productive. Many residents have moved to Seeley Lake in order to enjoy the quality of life found in the valley with a simple lifestyle in a rural environment. The existing small-town lifestyle and rural character are highly valued. Residents of the Seeley Lake area are community-minded and volunteers run most of the boards that oversee activities, schools, and utilities. With a strong spirit of self-reliance, they also value having trustworthy neighbors and helping each other in time of need. Residents do have to travel, often to Missoula, to gain access to certain medical, shopping and
Recommended publications
  • Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program

    Final Environmental Impact Statement Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program Bonneville Power Administration U.S. Department of Energy Bureau of Indian Affairs U.S. Department of the Interior Nez Perce Tribe July 1997 Final Environmental Impact Statement Responsible Agencies: U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration (BPA); U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA); Nez Perce Tribe (NPT). Title of Proposed Action: Nez Perce Tribal Hatchery Program. States Involved: Idaho. Abstract: Bonneville Power Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Nez Perce Tribe propose a supplementation program to restore chinook salmon to the Clearwater River Subbasin in Idaho. The Clearwater River is a tributary to the Snake River, which empties into the Columbia River. The Final EIS includes a new alternative suggested by commentors to the Draft EIS. In the Proposed Action, the Nez Perce Tribe would build and operate two central incubation and rearing hatcheries and six satellite facilities. Spring and fall chinook salmon would be reared and acclimated to different areas in the Subbasin and released at the hatchery and satellite sites or in other watercourses throughout the Subbasin. The supplementation program differs from other hatchery programs because the fish would be released at different sizes and would return to reproduce naturally in the areas where they are released. The Use of Existing Facilities Alternative proposes using existing production hatcheries and the proposed satellite facilities to meet the need. Facilities at Dworshak National Fish Hatchery, Kooskia National Fish Hatchery, and Hagerman National Fish Hatchery would be used as central incubation and rearing facilities.
  • Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    Draft Clearwater Assessment: 8. Fishery Resources

    8 Fishery Resources 8.1 Fish Status Currently more than 30 species of fish inhabit the Clearwater subbasin, including 19 native species, two of which have been reintroduced (Table 43). Salmonids and cyprinids are most numerous, representing 10 and 6 species, respectively. Exotic species within the subbasin are generally introduced sport or forage species, and include primarily centrarchids, ictalurids, and salmonids. Five fish species have been chosen as aquatic focal species in this assessment: chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), westslope cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki lewisi), bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) and brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). Aquatic focal species may serve as indicators of larger communities, and are listed by federal and/or state agencies as species of concern or, in the case of brook trout, have the potential to negatively impact other selected species. In addition, aquatic focal species had adequate data available for species status, distribution, and habitat use to aid future decision making. Information is also provided for additional species of interest for which only limited data exists, redband trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss subspecies), Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) and coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch). Although species status is discussed, data limitations for these species prohibits substantial consideration of limiting factors and distribution or condition of existing habitat areas. The resident fishery in Dworshak Reservoir is also considered a substantial fishery resource in the Clearwater subbasin. The Dworshak Reservoir fishery involves multiple species, and is addressed as a single fishery rather than as a large number of individual species. Distribution and status information was compiled for the five aquatic focal species using 23 data sources.
  • Bigfork North/South EA

    Bigfork North/South EA

    Environmental Assessment & Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation For Bigfork North & South STPP 52-1(18) 27 Control No. 4035 Prepared for: Montana Department of Transportation June 2004 Environmental Assessment & Programmatic Section 4(f) Evaluation For Bigfork North and South STPP 52-1(18) 27 Control No. 4035 This document is prepared in conformance with the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) requirements and contains the information required for an Environmental Assessment under the provisions of ARM 18.2.237(2) and 18.2.239. It is also prepared in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for an Environmental Assessment under 23 CFR 771.119. Submitted Pursuant to 42 USC 4332(2)(c) 49 U.S.C. 303 & Sections 2-3-104, 75-1-201 M.C.A. By the U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration And the Montana Department of Transportation Submitted by: Date: Montana Department of Transportation Environmental Services Reviewed and Approved for Distribution: Date: Federal Highway Administration One may contact the following people for additional information regarding this document: Jean A. Riley, P.E. Craig Genzlinger Engineering Section Supervisor Missoula Operations Engineer Environmental Services Bureau Montana Division Montana Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration 2701 Prospect Avenue 2880 Skyway Drive PO Box 201001 Helena, Montana 59602 Helena, MT 59620-1001 Table of Contents Executive Summary ............................................................................................ES-1
  • Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres

    Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres

    Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres 17010306 - HANGMAN SUBBASIN CNF 1701030601 Upper Hangman Creek 170103060101 Headwaters Hangman Creek 2,245 ********** ************ --------- sum 2,245 17060108 - PALOUSE RIVER SUBBASIN CNF 1706010803 Upper Palouse River 170601080301 Headwaters Palouse River 27,352 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080302 Meadow Creek 14,237 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080303 Big Creek 2,857 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080304 Flat Creek 839 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080305 Hatter Creek 16 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080306 Gold Creek 4,224 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080308 Palouse River/Rock Creek 3,300 CNF Upper Palouse River 170601080309 Deep Creek 1,346 ********** ************ --------- sum 54,171 17060109 - ROCK CREEK SUBBASIN CNF 1706010901 Pine Creek 170601090101 Headwaters Pine Creek 87 ********** ************ --------- sum 87 17060302 - LOWER SELWAY SUBBASIN CNF 1706030201 Moose Creek 170603020102 Upper East Fork Moose Creek 8,290 CNF Moose Creek 170603020103 Cedar Creek 16,271 CNF Moose Creek 170603020104 Middle East Fork Moose Creek 686 ********** ************ --------- sum 25,639 17060303 - LOCHSA RIVER SUBBASIN CNF 1706030301 Crooked Fork Creek 170603030101 Upper Crooked Fork Creek 18,907 Forest HUC5 Watershed Name HUC6 Subwatershed Name USFS Acres CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030102 Boulder Creek 15,627 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030103 Lower Crooked Fork Creek 11,766 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030104 Upper Brushy Fork Creek 5,142 CNF Crooked Fork Creek 170603030105 Spruce
  • Appraisal Report Of

    Appraisal Report Of

    APPRAISAL REPORT OF: A 78.30 ACRE TRACT – AS IF VACANT AT MONTANA HIGHWAY 83 CONDON, MONTANA PREPARED FOR: Ms. Emily Cooper, Land Sections Supervisor State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Trust Land Management Division P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-1601 MARKET VALUE AS OF: April 12, 2017 PREPARED BY: Elliott M. Clark, MAI & Christopher D. Clark Clark Real Estate Appraisal 704-C East 13th Street, #509 Whitefish, Montana 59937 (406) 862-8151 704-C East 13th Street, #509 Whitefish, Montana 59937 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL May 11, 2017 Ms. Emily Cooper, Land Sections Supervisor State of Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation Trust Land Management Division P.O. Box 201601 Helena, Montana 59620-1601 Re: Appraisal Report of Real Property Identified as Swan Valley Retreat, Condon, Montana (As If Vacant) Dear Ms. Cooper: In compliance with your request Elliott M. Clark, MAI and Christopher D. Clark with Clark Real Estate Appraisal viewed the above referenced property on April 12, 2017 accompanied by Mr. Claude Cassidy, Ms. Emily Cooper, and Ms. Chloe Katsilas all with the Montana DNRC. We reviewed applicable information regarding zoning, and researched and analyzed trends in real estate activity in the immediate and greater subject market area. The property viewing, reviews, and analyses were made in order to prepare the attached appraisal report in a summary format. We were requested by the client to provide an opinion of value for the subject property As If Vacant. For that reason, the value concluded in this report is based upon the Hypothetical Condition that the property was vacant as of the report effective date.
  • Clearwater Rapid Watershed Assessment

    Clearwater Rapid Watershed Assessment

    Clearwater - 17060306 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile December 2006 Tensed Farmington Clearwater - 17060306 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit LATAHLATAH Location Map Potlatch Bovill WHITMAN WHITMAN Deary (Washington) (Washington) Elk River Troy Moscow CLEARWATERCLEARWATER Kendrick Juliaetta Genesee Pierce Clearwater Peck Orofino Clarkston 17060306 Lapwai Culdesac Weippe Lewiston Asotin Reubens LEWISLEWIS Kamiah Craigmont Winchester Nezperce Kooskia Ferdinand NEZNEZ Stites PERCEPERCE Cottonwood !COEUR d ALENE MOSCOW! IDAHOIDAHO Grangeville LEWISTON! !REXBURG CALDWELL! !BOISE NAMPA! !IDAHO FALLS : BLACKFOOT ! !POCATELLO 0 5 10 15 20 25 TWIN! FALLS Miles 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 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 326W, Whitten Building, 14 th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 1 Clearwater - 17060306 Idaho 8 Digit Hydrologic Unit Profile December 2006 Introduction The Clearwater 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) subbasin is 1,503,992 acres. Clearwater and Nez Perce counties each account for approximately 24 percent of the subbasin. Twenty two percent of the subbasin is in Latah County, 18 percent in Lewis County, 13 percent in Idaho County and less than 0.5% in Whitman County, Washington.
  • National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    National Register of Historic Places Registration Form

    NPS Form 10-900 OMB Control No. 1024-0018 expiration date 03/31/2022 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties and districts. See instructions in National Register Bulletin, How to Complete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. 1. Name of Property Historic name: Stark House__________________________________ Name of related multiple property listing: ____N/A___________________________________________________ (Enter "N/A" if property is not part of a multiple property listing ____________________________________________________________________________ 2. Location Street & number: _4945 Lindbergh Lake Road _________________________ City or town: _Condon___________ State: __MT__________ County: Missoula ____ Not For Publication: Vicinity: X ____________________________________________________________________________ 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, I hereby certify that this X nomination ___ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic
  • Fishing and Boating Access Guide 2016

    Fishing and Boating Access Guide 2016

    CLEARWATER REGION IDAHO FISHING & BOATING ACCESS GUIDE 10 Onaway 6 P! 3 SHOSHONE RQ P! Princeton RQ6 RQ Potlatch P P WASHINGTON Harvard ¤£ Palouse River Panhandle 95 Moose Creek Reservoir In-State X Location iver P! Bovill ClearwaterFork Clearwater R P Viola rth RQ9 No P Vassar Spring Valley Reservoir RQ3 Salmon Deary P! P Upper Snake er RQ8 S pX Helmer iv r in g R V h P! Southwest Magic a Elk River l tc South le tla LATAH y Po Valley R 8 d RQ X -east !P Moscow TroyP! RQ8 P Elk Creek Reservoir Joel RQ3 RQ99 CLEARWATER Deer Creek Reservoir ¤£ 95 P! Kendrick Headquarters P P X Cameron P Southwick Dworshak McKays Eddy - Myrtle P! Reservoir Juliaetta Clearwater Hatchery P! Ahsahka Bridge Genesee RQ3 P Cavendish Campbell Pond Cherry Lane Lenore North Fork Clearwater River X P X wate Jaype ar r R P Lenore P Grangemont Myrtle Cle iv Upper Hog Island P er X X 12 XXPX RQ X XXX P Riverside rofino Cre ek RQ11 X Ahsahka O P! Lower Hog Island P! Peck P! Pierce ¤£12 McGill Spur Orofino X XX P Spalding Gibbs Eddy RQ128 ¤£ Ahsahka !P 12 RQ7 Zans Lewiston Beardy Gulch L in P! d Lapwai X s a y C rk R d Powers Rd Sweetwater Culdesac Greer XP X P P P! Jacques 11 P! Weippe ek RQ ig C re Greer X ¤£95 B anyon C X N E Z P E R C E C le a d ! r Deyo Reservoir P Five-Mile Creek w k R e Reubens a a e t h r e a Mann Lake C r P i R Woodland W a LEWIS iv w e Lolo p r C reek S n a RQ62 a L k e Winchester Lake Longcamp X R i v e P! r Winchester P! 64 Waha Lake X Craigmont RQ Nezperce P! P Glenwood P Waha P! Kamiah X ¤£ wyer 95 RQ162 La C reek IDAHO X X IDAHO FISHING
  • Mylie Lawyer and Her Collection

    Mylie Lawyer and Her Collection

    National Park Service Nez Perce NHP U.S. Department of the Interior Big Hole National Battlefield Nez Perce National Historical Park Mylie Lawyer And Her Collection Mylie Lawyer has had an interest in her family Hair, one of the Nez Perce leaders who welcomed history since she was a child growing up in Lapwai, Lewis and Clark in 1805. Mylie's collection stands as Idaho in the 1920s. Her perseverance has resulted in testimony to her determination to preserve her an extensive collection of stories and artifacts related family's heritage. to her family that includes Chief Lawyer and Twisted Mylie Lawyer Mylie Lawyer was born on the Pine Ridge stones from an area where her family and Born: March 24, 1912 Indian Agency, South Dakota to Corbett ancestors had camped. and Lillian Allman Lawyer. Corbett worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs She also has fond memories of sitting with (BIA) and Lillian was a teacher. her dad, Corbett and other Nez Perce men as they spoke in the Nez Perce language, After Mylie was born, the family returned telling stories, plucking whiskers, fishing to Lapwai, Idaho where Mylie grew up. and remembering the old days. Mylie did After graduating from Lapwai High School not speak Nez Perce so after these ses- in 1929, she attended Oregon State and sions, she would always ask her dad to Willamette University where she earned a recount the things they had talked about. degree in Home Economy. Even in her college days as she studied home economics she wished she had stud- In the 1930s she worked at the Warm ied anthropology or history instead.
  • Values of the Middle Fork Clearwater Adn Lochsa River Corridor

    Values of the Middle Fork Clearwater Adn Lochsa River Corridor

    Values of the Middle Fork Clearwater and Lochsa River Corridor Potentially Affected by Certain Over-Legal Truck Traffic US Highway 12 US Forest Service Northern Region Missoula, Montana March, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________________ BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................ 1 PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS................................................................................................... 2 HISTORICAL CONTEXT ............................................................................................................. 2 US HIGHWAY 12 – IDAHO SEGMENT ..................................................................................... 3 Agency Roles and Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 4 Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) ................................................................................. 4 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) ............................................................................. 4 Forest Service .......................................................................................................................... 5 Over-Legal Sized Load Traffic .................................................................................................. 5 NATIONAL DESIGNATIONS WITHIN THE CORRIDOR ....................................................... 6 Wild and Scenic River: Middle Fork
  • Movement Patterns of Adult Steelhead and Anglers in the Mainstem Clearwater River, Idaho

    Movement Patterns of Adult Steelhead and Anglers in the Mainstem Clearwater River, Idaho

    Movement Patterns of Adult Steelhead and Anglers in the Mainstem Clearwater River, Idaho Stacey F. Feeken Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho Michael C. Quist U.S. Geological Survey, Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit, Department of Fish and Wildlife Sciences, University of Idaho Brett J. Bowersox and Marika E. Dobos Idaho Department of Fish and Game Clearwater River Columbia River Snake River 0 100 km Potlatch River Five wild populations NF Clearwater River • Lower Clearwater River • Lolo Creek Clearwater River • SF Clearwater River • Lochsa River MF Clearwater River Lochsa River • Selway River One hatchery stock Selway River SF Clearwater River Trophy steelhead fishery July 1st • Catch and release Entire river (to Clear Creek) August 1st • Catch and keep Mouth to Memorial Bridge • Catch and release Entire river (to Clear Creek) October 15th • Catch and keep Entire river (to Clear Creek) May 1st • Closed to fishing How can we better understand the steelhead fishery to benefit both steelhead and anglers? Describe steelhead distribution and movement • Wild and hatchery steelhead • Timing into the Clearwater River • Fate Describe angler distribution Methods Sort-By-Code Clearwater River Columbia River GO LM LG DW IH MC JD TD BO HC Snake River 0 100 km Lower Granite Dam Potlatch River NF Clearwater River Tracking 1 2 3 4 5 Clearwater River 6 MF Clearwater River 7 Lochsa River 8 Selway River SF Clearwater River 0 40 km Results Lower Clearwater
  • Draft Clearwater Assessment: 5. Vegetative Resources

    Draft Clearwater Assessment: 5. Vegetative Resources

    5 Vegetative Resources 5.1 General Vegetation Description Over 70% of the Clearwater subbasin is made up of forested communities (Table 30), generally classified as mesic, xeric, or subalpine. Mesic or moist conifer forests are largely found on mid- elevation montane slopes where precipitation patterns allow the formation of grand fir forests, or along river systems characterized by maritime climatic influences such as occur along the North Fork Clearwater River and parts of the Selway River. Under these unique climatic conditions grand fir gives way to western red cedar and hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla) stands. Cedar forests often contain unique plant species, including two focal plant species, crenulate moonwort and mountain moonwort. Xeric or dry forests are characteristically dominated by ponderosa pine at the lower elevations, and grade into Douglas-fir and dry site grand fir as elevation increases (Cooper et al. 1987). Subalpine fir and lodgepole pine dominate forests at middle and high elevations within the subbasin. At the very highest sites, subalpine fir stands also contain whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulus), which is an important wildlife food source. Table 30. General vegetation types in the Clearwater subbasin (grouped Idaho GAP2 data) Vegetation Category % Area Area (km2) Forest 71.4% 16,955.58 Agriculture 10.2% 2,425.48 Shrubland 7.7% 1,835.25 Grassland 4.0% 951.21 Other 2.3% 536.88 Subalpine/Alpine Meadow 2.1% 487.02 Riparian 1.7% 407.04 Water/Streamside 0.5% 111.11 Urban 0.1% 31.23 Shrublands and grasslands currently make up 12% of the subbasin’s vegetation. The majority of the grasslands occur in the foothills and breaklands as canyon bunchgrass communities.