DOCSLIB.ORG

Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana Land Protection Plan Swan Valley Conservation Area Montana May 2011 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Benton Lake National Wildlife Refuge Complex 922 Bootlegger Trail Great Falls, Montana 59404-6133 406 / 727 7400 http://www.fws.gov/bentonlake and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Region 6, Division of Refuge Planning P. O. Box 25486-DFC Denver, Colorado 80225 303 / 236 4378 303 / 236 4792 fax http://mountain-prairie.fws.gov/planning/lpp.htm CITATION U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service . 2011. Land Protection Plan, Swan Valley. Lakewood, Colorado: U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Mountain-Prairie Region. 81 p. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service policy, a land protection plan has been prepared to analyze the effects of creating the Swan Valley Conservation Area in western Montana. ■ The Swan Valley Conservation Area Land Protection Plan describes the priorities for acquiring 10,000 acres on private lands nestled between the Bob Marshall Wilderness and the Mission Mountain Wilderness. This project also includes the fee-title purchase of up to 1,000 acres immediately adjacent to Swan River National Wildlife Refuge. Note: Information contained in the maps within this document is approximate and does not represent a legal survey. Ownership infor­ mation may not be complete. Contents Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. iii 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .............................................................................................................................................. 1 Issues ...................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Biological Issues Identified During Scoping ............................................................................................... 3 Socioeconomic Issues Identified During Scoping....................................................................................... 3 Issues Not Selected for Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................. 5 National Wildlife Refuge System and Authorities .......................................................................................... 5 Related Actions and Activities .......................................................................................................................... 5 Habitat Protection and Easement and Fee-title Acquisition Process.......................................................... 6 Conservation Easements .................................................................................................................................... 6 Fee-title Acquisition............................................................................................................................................. 6 2 Area Description and Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Biological Environment ....................................................................................................................................... 7 Climate ............................................................................................................................................................. 7 Climate Change .............................................................................................................................................. 8 Adaptation, Mitigation, and Engagement .................................................................................................. 8 Geological Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Habitat ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Socioeconomic Environment ............................................................................................................................... 13 Landownership ............................................................................................................................................... 13 Timber Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 15 Property Tax ................................................................................................................................................... 15 Public Use and Wildlife-dependent Recreational Activities ................................................................... 15 3 Threats to and Status of Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Effects on the Biological Environment ............................................................................................................. 17 Wildlife Habitat ............................................................................................................................................... 17 Water Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Effects on the Socioeconomic Environment...................................................................................................... 17 Landownership and Land Use ..................................................................................................................... 18 Value of Intact Ecosystems ........................................................................................................................... 18 Wind Energy Development ........................................................................................................................... 18 Public Use......................................................................................................................................................... 19 Economic Impacts........................................................................................................................................... 19 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 19 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources ........................................................................... 19 Short-term Use versus Long-term Productivity ............................................................................................. 19 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................................................................. 20 Past Actions ..................................................................................................................................................... 20 Present Actions ............................................................................................................................................... 20 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions .................................................................................................... 22 ii LPP, Swan Valley Conservation Area, MT 4 Project Implementation............................................................................................................................................................... 23 Land Protection Options ..................................................................................................................................... 23 Action and Objectives........................................................................................................................................... 23 Acquisition Alternatives ..................................................................................................................................... 24 Strategic Habitat Conservation.......................................................................................................................... 24 Biological Planning.......................................................................................................................................... 24 Conservation Design....................................................................................................................................... 27 Conservation Delivery ................................................................................................................................... 28 Monitoring and Research..............................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ecologically Significant Wetlands
    Ecologically Significant Wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River Valleys FINAL REPORT JUNE 1, 1999 Submitted to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality Prepared by Jack Greenlee Ecologically Significant Wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River Valleys JUNE 1, 1999 DEQ Agreement 280016 ã 1999 Montana Natural Heritage Program State Library Building · P.O. Box 201800 · 1515 East Sixth Avenue · Helena, MT 59620-1800 · 406-444-3009 This document should be cited as follows: Greenlee, J.T. 1998. Ecologically significant wetlands in the Flathead, Stillwater, and Swan River valleys. Unpub- lished report to the Montana Department of Environmental Quality. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, MT. 192 pp. The Montana Natural Heritage Program received a wetland protection Abstract grant from the Environmental Protection Agency to identify and inven- tory ecologically significant wetlands and prioritize them for conserva- tion, restoration, and mitigation applications. Much of the state lacks basic information about its wetland resources like National Wetland Inventory maps, and there is even less information available about which of the remaining wetlands are functionally intact and of high quality. This report summarizes the results of a field inventory of high quality wetlands in the Flathead Valley. The project focused on both public and private wetlands found in the Flathead Lake, Stillwater, and Swan drainages in the Flathead River watershed. We identified potential wetlands for inventory by querying locally knowledgeable individuals, and by using National Wetland Inventory maps, aerial imagery, and agency data. Criteria used to select wetlands for inventory included large size, wetlands without geomorphic or hydrologic modification, presence of intact native plant communities, presence of concentrations of rare plants or animals, and intact uplands.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Wetland Conditions
    Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds Prepared for: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Prepared by: Melissa Hart, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn Montana Natural Heritage Program a cooperative program of the Montana State Library and the University of Montana December 2015 Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds Prepared for: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Agreement Number: CD-96814001-0 Prepared by: Melissa Hart, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn ©2015 Montana Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 201800 ● 1515 East Sixth Avenue ● Helena, MT 59620-1800 ● 406-444-5354 i This document should be cited as follows: Hart, Melissa, Linda Vance, Karen Newlon, Jennifer Chutz, and Jamul Hahn. 2015. Estimating Wetland Condition Locally: An Intensification Study in the Blackfoot and Swan River Watersheds. Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Montana Natural Heritage Program, Helena, Montana. 52 pp. plus appendices. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes the results of our fourth statewide rotating basin assessment, focusing on wetlands in the Blackfoot and Swan subbasins of western Montana. We assessed wetland condition within nine watersheds at multiple spatial scales. We conducted Level 1 GIS analyses that produced: 1) wetland landscape profiles, which summarize information on wetland abundance, type, and extent within a given watershed; and 2) a landscape characterization, which characterizes the anthropogenic stressors such as roads and land uses, as well as general information regarding wetland landscape context, using readily available digital datasets. We carried out Level 2 assessments to provide rapid, field-based assessments of wetland condition based on four attributes: 1) Landscape Context; 2) Vegetation; 3) Physicochemical; and 4) Hydrology.
    [Show full text]
  • Hydrology Design Report
    MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION Upstream of Cold Creek Rd. Bridge, 9/18/14 Hydrology Design Report Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study Missoula County, MT By the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation May 2015 Hydrology Design Report, Swan River Detailed Floodplain Study May 2015 HYDROLOGY DESIGN REPORT SWAN RIVER Missoula County, MT Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 LiDAR Collection ............................................................................................................................ 1 1.2 Watershed Description ................................................................................................................. 1 1.3 Effective FIS (Flood Insurance Study) Hydrology .......................................................................... 2 1.4 Historic Data .................................................................................................................................. 3 2.0 HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................ 5 2.1 Stream Gage Analyses ................................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Systematic Estimation ........................................................................................................... 6 2.1.2 Two Station Comparison & MOVE.1
    [Show full text]
  • Download This
    '/•""•'/• fc* NFS Form 10-900 OMB No. 1024-00 (Rev. Oct 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service JUN20I994 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES NATIONAL REGISTRATION FORM REGISTER 1. Name of Property historic name: Kearney Rapids Bridge other name/site number: Ferndale Bridge 2. Location street & number: Bigfork Canyon Road not for publication: n/a vicinity: X cityAown: Bigfork state: Montana code: MT county: Rathead code: 029 zip code: 59911 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, 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 Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property X meets _ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant _ nationally X statewide X locally. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official/Title \fjF~ Date Montana State Historic Preservation Office State or Federal agency or bureau In my opinion, the property _ meets _ does not meet the National Register criteria. Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau 4. National Park Service Certification Entered in t I, hereby certify that this property is: Signature of the Keeper National Begistifte of Action ^/entered in the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ determined not eligible for the National Register _ see continuation sheet _ removed from the National Register _see continuation sheet _ other (explain): ___________ Kcarnev Rapids Bridge Flathead County.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness
    University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers Graduate School 1995 A Confluence of sovereignty and conformity : the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness Diane L. Krahe 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 Krahe, Diane L., "A Confluence of sovereignty and conformity : the Mission Mountains Tribal Wilderness" (1995). Graduate Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 8956. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/etd/8956 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]. A CONFLUENCE OF SOVEREIGNTY AND CONFORMITY: THE MISSION MOUNTAINS TRIBAL WILDERNESS by Diane L Krahe BA Bridgewater College, 1986 presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science The University of Montana 1995 Approved by; Chairperson Dean, Graduate School Date UMI Number: EP39757 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMT OiSiMflAtion Pubiishrig UMI EP39757 Published by ProQuest LLC (2013). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author.
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan
    Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan A cooperative plan created by Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Submitted to the Bonneville Power Administration September 15, 2007 Elk Creek Conservation Area Management Plan A cooperative plan created by Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes September 2007 Swan Ecosystem Center 6887 Hwy 83 USFS Condon Work Center Condon, MT 59826 T 406-754-3137 F 406-754-2965 Email: [email protected] www.swanecosystemcenter.com Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Natural Resources Department 51383 Highway 93 North P.O. Box 278 Pablo, Montana 59855 T 406-883-2888 F 406-883-2896 www.cskt.org Report prepared by Donna Erickson Consulting, Inc in collaboration with the Elk Creek Management Group www.westernopenlands.com Table of Contents Page Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................2 Chapter 1. Introduction................................................................................................................5 Background..........................................................................................................................5 Partnership: Swan Ecosystem Center and Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes............................................................................................5
    [Show full text]
  • Kootenai Lodge Kootenai Lodge
    ALL 2004 F COMPLIMENTARY FLATFLATHHEADEAD NORTHWEST MONTANA...THE LAST BEST PLACE LIVING ̄ The history and romance of... Kootenai Lodge KALISPELL • WHITEFISH • BIGFORK • LAKESIDE • POLSON • COLUMBIA FALLS • GLACIER KOOTENAI LODGE The magical Kootenai Lodge is reflected in a tranquil Swan Lake. A STORYBOOK PLACE Photos and text by Kay Bjork ou arrive at Kootenai Lodge and peer curiously through an iron gate adorned with graceful swan silhouettes. The Y drive meanders down into the luscious green estate where towering pines stand like sentinels over the log buildings that line the shores of a glittery Swan Lake. FLATHEAD LIVING Fall 2004 www.flatheadliving.com 79 At the main lodge you enter another gate– KOOTENAI LODGE this one small and inviting, like one you would expect in a secret garden. You im- mediately feel safe and quieted in the court- yard that leads to the grand main lodge. Whimsical etchings created by Charlie Russell in a bygone era are lit up by bright afternoon sun – salamander, turtle and a noble Indian headdress. You are tempted to take off your shoes so that you can feel the curve and dip of the salamander and the warm cement on your feet. You swing the heavy double door open and the latch clinks with the thud of the door behind you. Twirling to take in the im- mense room, warmed by the red-hued larch logs and accented by the soft grey of un- peeled cedar, you imagine the delicious sound of music and laughter in this party place. You turn in a circle, slowly now, to take in the scope of this huge room: the walk- in fireplace, antique wicker furniture, a dozen animal mounts, and a Steinway grand piano.
    [Show full text]
  • Mineral Resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana
    Mineral Resources of the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Missoula and Lake Counties, Montana By JACK E. HARRISON, MITCHELL W. REYNOLDS, and M. DEAN KLEINKOPF, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, and ELDON C. PATTEE, U.S. BUREAU OF MINES STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1261-D An evaluation of the mineral potential of the area UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY William T. Pecora, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 STUDIES RELATED TO WILDERNESS PRIMITIVE AREAS Pursuant to the Wilderness Act (Public Law 88-577, Sept. 3,1964) and the Conference Report on Senate Bill 4, 88th Congress, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bureau of Mines are making mineral surveys of wilderness and primitive areas. Areas officially designated as "wilder­ ness," "wild," and "canoe" when the act was passed were incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation System. Areas classed as "primitive" were not included in the Wilderness System, but the act provided that each primitive area should be studied for its suitability for incorporation into the Wilderness System. The mineral surveys constitute one aspect of the suitability studies. This bulletin reports the results of a mineral survey in the Mission Mountains Primitive Area, Montana. The area discussed in the report corresponds to the area under con­ sideration for wilderness status. This bulletin is one of a series of similar reports on primitive areas. CONTENTS Page Summary _________________________________________________________ Dl t Geology and mineral resources, by Jack E.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Archery Black Bear Hunting On
    Draft Environmental Assessment for Archery Black Bear Hunting on Swan River National Wildlife Refuge March 2020 Prepared by Benjamin Gilles, Wildlife Refuge Manager, 922 Bootlegger Trail, Great Falls, Montana 59404 [email protected] 406-727-7400 x222 Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3 1.1 Proposed Action ................................................................................................................3 1.2 Background .......................................................................................................................3 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ......................................................................6 2.0 Alternatives ......................................................................................................................... 6 2.1 Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................................6 Alternative A – Allow Fall, Archery-Only Black Bear Hunting on Swan River National Wildlife Refuge – Proposed Action Alternative ..................................................................... 6 Alternative B – Continue Current Levels of Public Use on Swan River National Wildlife Refuge – No Action Alternative ............................................................................................. 7 2.2 Alternative Considered, But Dismissed from Further Consideration ...............................7
    [Show full text]
  • Botanical Treasures in the Swan Valley
    elseyaNewsletter of the Montana Native Plant Society Kelseya uniflora K ill. by Bonnie Heidel Botanical Treasures in the Swan Valley A preview of the MNPS Annual Meeting By Steve Shelly, Clark Fork Chapter Along with its spectacular scenery, the Swan Valley in northwestern Montana has many unique ecological characteristics that have long drawn the attention of botanists and naturalists. To start, it is one of the few predominantly forested broad river valleys in Montana. Productive stands of conifers and deciduous trees occur almost uninterrupted across the valley, from the divide between the Swan and Clearwater River drainages at the south end to Swan Lake at the north end. Another special feature of the Swan Valley is its high diversity of wetland habitats, which are typically embedded within the forested communities on the valley floor. Scattered throughout the valley are lakes, marshes, vernal ponds, sedge meadows and peatlands. Of particular interest are the peatlands, which represent a specialized type of wetland in which the Cypripedium calceolus. Photo by Steve Shelly rate of accumulation of organic matter exceeds the rate of decomposition. This accumulation results in a (sparrow’s egg lady’s-slipper), Liparis loeselii (fen orchid), deepening layer of peat over time, which in our region Eleocharis rostellata (beaked spikerush), Carex rostrata occurs at a rate of approximately one inch per 100 years. (glaucous beaked sedge), and Epipactis gigantea (giant There are two broad types of peatlands – bogs and fens. helleborine). Bogs receive water only from precipitation, while the Another significant attribute of the Swan Valley is water entering fens comes from both precipitation and the high diversity of plant species that inhabit lower groundwater.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2, Area Description and Resources
    2 Area Description and Resources USFWS Swan River in winter. This chapter describes the biological, cultural, and maximum precipitation was 37.73 inches in 1964. socioeconomic resources most likely affected by establishing the Swan Valley CA. At the lower elevations the average annual temperature approximates 40°F. The average maximum temperature at Swan Lake is 55.3°F with BIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENT the coldest average minimum temperature of 15.6°F occurring in January and the warmest average high In this section climate; climate change; adaptation, temperature of 81.4°F occurring in July. Occasionally, mitigation, and engagement responses to climate cold arctic air slips over the Continental Divide from change; geologic resources; habitat; and wildlife of the northeast and down the valley, bringing extreme the Swan Valley are discussed. subzero temperatures from the continental weather system. Summer temperatures average in the 80s at CLIMATE the lower elevations with extreme temperatures of 90°F to 100°F during drought years. The relatively The Upper Swan Valley is at the eastern limit of short growing season (2 to 3 months) limits the Pacific maritime climatic influence, common to widespread agricultural development. Frosts can northern Idaho and northwestern Montana. The occur any month of the year. Therefore, conversion Mission Mountains experience more of the maritime of forest types to cultivated crops has been limited in influence than the Swan Range. The climate is comparison to other western Montana valleys. The generally cool and dry with precipitation increasing highest temperature recorded was 103°F on August from south to north in the valley. Precipitation in the 24, 1969 and the lowest recorded temperature was form of snow and rain varies between an average -40°F on February 29, 1968 (Western Regional of 30 inches on the valley floor to over 100 inches Climate Center 2010).
    [Show full text]
  • Swan River National Wildlife Refuge
    SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kalispell, Montana ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1999 U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM REVIEWS AND APPROVALS SWAN RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE Kalispell, Montana National Bison Range Complex Moiese, Montana ANNUAL NARRATIVE REPORT Calendar Year 1999 Refuge ^fanager Date Project Leader Date Refuge Supervisor Review Date Regional Office Approval Date INTRODUCTION The Swan River National Wildlife Refuge (NWR), is located in northwest Montana, 38 miles southeast of the town of Creston, in the serene and picturesque Swan Valley Mountain Range. The Refuge was established in 1973 at the request of Montana Senator Lee Metcalf, who often hunted the area and desired to see it preserved. The Refuge was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. It consists of 1,568 acres, with an additional 210-acre Forest Service in holding that.is managed under a Memorandum of Understanding. The refuge boundary lines within the flood plain of the Swan River above Swan Lake and between the Swan Mountain Range to the east and the Mission Mountain Range to the west. The valley was formed when glacial water poured down the steep slopes of the Mission Range into Flathead Lake. The valley floor is generally flat, but rises steeply to adjacent forested mountain sides. Approximately 80 percent of the refuge lies within this valley flood plain, which is composed mainly of reed canary grass. Deciduous and coniferous forests comprise the remaining 20 percent. Swan River, which once meandered through the flood plain, has been forced to the west side of the refuge by past earthquakes and deposits of silt.
    [Show full text]