DOCSLIB.ORG

Natural Resources Component: Bonner County Comprehensive Plan

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Natural Resources Component: Bonner County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Component Bonner County Comprehensive Plan Natural Resources Component Bonner County Comprehensive Plan Adopted by Resolution of the Bonner County Board of Commissioners May 8, 2003 Resolution #03-19 recorded May 8, 2003, at Instrument #624303, records of Bonner County, Idaho BONNER COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT 127 S. First Avenue Sandpoint, Idaho 83864 (208) 265-1458 Prepared with the assistance of J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc. 212 N. First Avenue, Ste. 307 Sandpoint, ID 83864 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 - WATER BODIES ........................................... CHAPTER 1 - 2 Section 1.1 - Rivers and Streams ..................................... CHAPTER 1 - 2 Clark Fork River ........................................... CHAPTER 1 - 2 Clark Fork Basin Tributary Streams ............................ CHAPTER 1 - 5 Pend Oreille River .......................................... CHAPTER 1 - 6 Pend Oreille Basin Tributary Streams ........................... CHAPTER 1 - 8 Pack River ................................................ CHAPTER 1 - 9 Priest River...............................................CHAPTER 1 - 14 Priest River and Priest Lake Basin Tributary Streams.............. CHAPTER 1 - 16 Section 1.2 - Lakes............................................... CHAPTER 1 - 20 Lake Pend Oreille ......................................... CHAPTER 1 - 20 Priest Lake .............................................. CHAPTER 1 - 30 Upper Priest Lake ......................................... CHAPTER 1 - 35 East Side Lower Lake ...................................... CHAPTER 1 - 35 West Side Lower Lake...................................... CHAPTER 1 - 35 Cocolalla Lake............................................ CHAPTER 1 - 39 Kelso Lake............................................... CHAPTER 1 - 49 Round Lake .............................................. CHAPTER 1 - 50 Granite Lake.............................................. CHAPTER 1 - 52 Shepherd, Mirror, and Hoodoo Lakes .......................... CHAPTER 1 - 54 Section 1.3 - Wetlands ............................................ CHAPTER 1 - 54 Section 1.4 - Geothermal Waters .................................... CHAPTER 1 - 56 CHAPTER 2 - VEGETATION ............................................. CHAPTER 2 - 1 Section 2.1 - Forests............................................... CHAPTER 2 - 1 Forest Composition ......................................... CHAPTER 2 - 1 Ownership ................................................ CHAPTER 2 - 1 History................................................... CHAPTER 2 - 2 Productivity ............................................... CHAPTER 2 - 3 Section 2.2 - Pasture, Range and Crop Land ............................ CHAPTER 2 - 4 Section 2.3 - Generalized Vegetation.................................. CHAPTER 2 - 6 Section 2.4 - Sensitive Species ....................................... CHAPTER 2 - 6 CHAPTER 3 - SOILS .................................................... CHAPTER 3 - 1 Section 3.1- Prime farmland......................................... CHAPTER 3 - 1 Section 3.2 - Non-Prime Farmland.................................... CHAPTER 3 - 4 Section 3.3 - Soil Properties......................................... CHAPTER 3 - 7 Engineering Index Properties.................................. CHAPTER 3 - 7 Physical & Chemical Properties ............................... CHAPTER 3 - 8 Soil and Water Features...................................... CHAPTER 3 - 8 Sewage Disposal Characteristics............................... CHAPTER 3 - 9 CHAPTER 4 – FISHERIES ................................................ CHAPTER 4 - 1 Section 4.1 - Native Species......................................... CHAPTER 4 - 1 Natural Resources Component Bonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - i Westslope Cutthroat Trout.................................... CHAPTER 4 - 2 Bull Trout................................................. CHAPTER 4 - 2 Mountain Whitefish ......................................... CHAPTER 4 - 3 Pygmy Whitefish........................................... CHAPTER 4 - 4 Northern pikeminnow ....................................... CHAPTER 4 - 4 Section 4.2 - Introduced Species...................................... CHAPTER 4 - 5 Brown trout ............................................... CHAPTER 4 - 5 Rainbow trout ............................................. CHAPTER 4 - 5 Arctic grayling............................................. CHAPTER 4 - 6 Kokanee.................................................. CHAPTER 4 - 6 Lake Trout (Mackinaw)...................................... CHAPTER 4 - 7 Mysis relicta (shrimp) ....................................... CHAPTER 4 - 8 Section 4.2 - Stream Segments/Shorelines (Spawning, hatching, rearing)...... CHAPTER 4 - 8 Lake Pend Oreille .......................................... CHAPTER 4 - 8 Upper and Lower Priest Lake ................................. CHAPTER 4 - 9 Section 4.3 - Game Species.......................................... CHAPTER 4 - 9 Section 4.4 - Non-Game Species ..................................... CHAPTER 4 - 9 Section 4.5 - Sensitive Species ....................................... CHAPTER 4 - 9 Threats to the Bull Trout Population in Lake Pend Oreille .......... CHAPTER 4 - 10 Bull and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Streams .................... CHAPTER 4 - 11 Subwatersheds Descriptions/Threats/Actions .................... CHAPTER 4 - 12 Section 4.6 - Hatcheries ........................................... CHAPTER 4 - 17 Sandpoint ................................................ CHAPTER 4 - 17 Cabinet Gorge ............................................ CHAPTER 4 - 17 CHAPTER 5 - WILDLIFE ................................................ CHAPTER 5 - 1 Section 5.1 - General Overview ...................................... CHAPTER 5 - 1 Section 5.2 - Waterfowl ............................................ CHAPTER 5 - 1 Section 5.3 - Big Game............................................. CHAPTER 5 - 3 Deer..................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 3 Elk ...................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 5 Bear ..................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 7 Mountain Lion ............................................. CHAPTER 5 - 8 Moose.................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 9 Mountain Goat ............................................ CHAPTER 5 - 10 Bighorn Sheep ............................................ CHAPTER 5 - 10 Section 5.4 - Upland Game......................................... CHAPTER 5 - 11 Upland Game Birds........................................ CHAPTER 5 - 11 Furbearers ............................................... CHAPTER 5 - 12 Predators ................................................ CHAPTER 5 - 13 Section 5.5 - Non-game Wildlife .................................... CHAPTER 5 - 14 Section 5.6 - Special Status Species.................................. CHAPTER 5 - 15 Caribou ................................................. CHAPTER 5 - 16 Grizzly Bear ............................................. CHAPTER 5 - 18 Bald Eagle ............................................... CHAPTER 5 - 19 Section 5.7 - General Habitat ....................................... CHAPTER 5 - 20 Section 5.8 - Critical Habitat........................................CHAPTER 5 - 21 White-tailed Deer and Mule Deer Winter Range.................. CHAPTER 5 - 22 Natural Resources Component Bonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - ii Elk Winter Range and Calving Habitat......................... CHAPTER 5 - 23 Moose Habitat ............................................ CHAPTER 5 - 23 Waterfowl Production, Migration, and Wintering Areas ............ CHAPTER 5 - 24 Bald Eagle Nesting and Foraging Areas ........................ CHAPTER 5 - 25 Great Blue Heron Rookeries ................................. CHAPTER 5 - 26 Harlequin Duck Breeding Streams ............................ CHAPTER 5 - 26 Grizzly Bear Spring and Fall Range ........................... CHAPTER 5 - 27 Western Grebe Nesting Area................................. CHAPTER 5 - 27 Black Tern Nesting Areas ................................... CHAPTER 5 - 28 Goshawk Nesting Area and Flammulated Owl Nesting Habitat...... CHAPTER 5 - 28 Section 5.9 - Wildlife Disturbance Due To Urban Sprawl................. CHAPTER 5 - 29 Deer.................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 29 Elk ..................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 31 Moose................................................... CHAPTER 5 - 32 Raptors.................................................. CHAPTER 5 - 32 Great Blue Herons......................................... CHAPTER 5 - 33 Waterfowl ............................................... CHAPTER 5 - 34 Bald Eagles .............................................. CHAPTER 5 - 34 Harlequin Ducks .......................................... CHAPTER 5 - 35 CHAPTER 6 – MINERALS ............................................... CHAPTER 6 - 1 Section 6.1 - Metals ............................................... CHAPTER 6 - 1 Quantity .................................................. CHAPTER 6 - 1 Mining History............................................. CHAPTER 6 - 1 Section 6.2 - Non-Metals ........................................... CHAPTER 6 - 2 Type..................................................... CHAPTER 6 - 2 Location.................................................. CHAPTER 6 - 2 Quantity .................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics
    SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS MAP 3272 Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics Barton, G.J., and Dux, A.M., 2013, Bathymetry, Morphology, and Lakebed Geologic Characteristics of Potential U.S. Department of the Interior Prepared in cooperation with the Kokanee Salmon Spawning Habitat in Lake Pend Oreille, Bayview and Lakeview Quadrangles, Idaho science for a changing world U.S. Geological Survey IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME Abstract lake level of 2,062.5 ft above NGVD 1929 (figs. 4–6) has been maintained during the summer (normal maximum summer full Scenic Bay, includes 254 acres and 2.8 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to-moderate-sloping landscape and steep mountains. Methods conditions vary within each study unit: 2,100 photographs were subsampled for Scenic Bay, 1,710 photographs were subsampled lake morphology, lakebed geologic units, and substrate embeddedness. Descriptions of the morphology, lakebed geology, and pool), with drawdowns in autumn to reach a minimum winter level. Before 1966, the winter lake level was variable, and an A second study unit, along the north shore of Idlewild Bay, includes 220 acres and 2.2 mi of shoreline bordered by a gentle-to- for Idlewild Bay, and 245 photographs were subsampled for Echo Bay. These photographs were reviewed, and additional embeddedness in the shore zone, rise zone, and open water in bays and the main stem of the lake are provided in figures 5–6. Kokanee salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) are a keystone species in Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho, historically exceptional fishery continued with the Albeni Falls Dam in operation.
    [Show full text]
  • Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Recovery Area 2015 Research and Monitoring Progress Report
    SELKIRK MOUNTAINS GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY AREA 2015 RESEARCH AND MONITORING PROGRESS REPORT PREPARED BY WAYNE F. KASWORM, ALEX WELANDER, THOMAS G. RADANDT, JUSTIN E. TEISBERG, WAYNE L. WAKKINEN, MICHAEL PROCTOR, AND CHRISTOPHER SERVHEEN 2016 UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GRIZZLY BEAR RECOVERY COORDINATOR'S OFFICE UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA, MAIN HALL ROOM 309 MISSOULA, MONTANA 59812 (406) 243-4903 1 Abstract: Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) captured and monitored a radio collared sample of grizzly bears in the SMGBRZ from 1983 until 2002 to determine distribution, home ranges, cause specific mortality, reproductive rates, and population trend. This effort was suspended in 2003 due to funding constraints and management decisions. In cooperation with IDFG and the Panhandle National Forest (USFS) this effort was reinitiated during 2012 with personnel from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). During 2013 the program was expanded with funding from IDFG, USFS, several sources in British Columbia (BC), and USFWS. This cooperative research and monitoring effort was expanded to involve Idaho Department of Lands, the Kalispel Tribe, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife in 2014 Numbers of females with cubs in the Selkirk Mountains grizzly bear recovery zone (SMGBRZ) varied from 0–4 per year and averaged 1.5 per year from 2010–15. Human caused mortality averaged 1.7 bears per year and 0.7 females per year. Ten human caused mortalities during 2010-15 include 4 females (all BC) and 6 males (one US and five BC). Human caused mortalities during 2010-15 were four adult females (one vehicle collision and three under investigation), one adult male (management), and four subadult males (two management, one mistaken identity, and one self-defense).
    [Show full text]
  • Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL
    Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL Idaho Department of Environmental Quality January 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Prepared by: Robert D. Henderson Lewiston Regional Office Idaho Department of Environmental Quality 1118 F. Street Lewiston, ID 83501 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Acknowledgments Completing this Subbasin Assessment and TMDL would not have been possible without the support of the following individuals and organizations: • Mark Shumar • Alan Monek • Brock Morgan • Barbara Anderson • Dennis Meier • Palouse River Watershed Advisory Group • Tom Dechert • Cary Myler • Jason Fales • William Kelly • John Cardwell • Ken Clark • Bill Dansart • Richard Lee • John Gravelle • Marti Bridges • Daniel Stewart Thank you! Cover photo by Robert D. Henderson i Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. ii Palouse River Tributaries Subbasin Assessment and TMDL January 2005 Table of Contents Abbreviations, Acronyms, and Symbols .......................................................xiii Executive Summary........................................................................................xvii Subbasin at a Glance .................................................................................................xvii Key Findings .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report
    Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report The Trust for Public Land March Printed on 100% recycled paper. © 2016 The Trust for Public Land. The Trust for Public Land creates parks and protects land for people, ensuring healthy, livable communities for generations to come. tpl.org Table of contents Preface ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive summary .................................................................................................................. 5 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 6 2. Study area ....................................................................................................................... 9 3. Community engagement ........................................................................................... 12 4. Mapping conservation values .................................................................................... 15 5. Greater Sandpoint Greenprint action plan .............................................................. 26 6. Profiles in conservation ............................................................................................... 28 7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 30 Appendix A: Participants Lists .............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: a Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators
    USDA United States Department of Agriculture Research Natural Areas on Forest Service National Forest System Lands Rocky Mountain Research Station in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, General Technical Report RMRS-CTR-69 Utah, and Western Wyoming: February 2001 A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and E'ducators Angela G. Evenden Melinda Moeur J. Stephen Shelly Shannon F. Kimball Charles A. Wellner Abstract Evenden, Angela G.; Moeur, Melinda; Shelly, J. Stephen; Kimball, Shannon F.; Wellner, Charles A. 2001. Research Natural Areas on National Forest System Lands in Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Utah, and Western Wyoming: A Guidebook for Scientists, Managers, and Educators. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-69. Ogden, UT: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 84 p. This guidebook is intended to familiarize land resource managers, scientists, educators, and others with Research Natural Areas (RNAs) managed by the USDA Forest Service in the Northern Rocky Mountains and lntermountain West. This guidebook facilitates broader recognitionand use of these valuable natural areas by describing the RNA network, past and current research and monitoring, management, and how to use RNAs. About The Authors Angela G. Evenden is biological inventory and monitoring project leader with the National Park Service -NorthernColorado Plateau Network in Moab, UT. She was formerly the Natural Areas Program Manager for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Northern Region and lntermountain Region of the USDA Forest Service. Melinda Moeur is Research Forester with the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain ResearchStation in Moscow, ID, and one of four Research Natural Areas Coordinators from the Rocky Mountain Research Station. J. Stephen Shelly is Regional Botanist and Research Natural Areas Coordinator with the USDA Forest Service, Northern Region Headquarters Office in Missoula, MT.
    [Show full text]
  • Survival and Mortality of Translocated Woodland Caribou Author(S): Bradley B
    Survival and Mortality of Translocated Woodland Caribou Author(s): Bradley B. Compton, Peter Zager and Gregg Servheen Reviewed work(s): Source: Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Autumn, 1995), pp. 490-496 Published by: Allen Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3782959 . Accessed: 07/11/2012 15:12 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Allen Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Wildlife Society Bulletin. http://www.jstor.org Caribou survival Survival and mortality of translocated woodland caribou Bradley B. Compton, Peter Zager, and Gregg Servheen AbstractWe monitoredsurvival of 60 woodland caribou (Rangifertarandus) translocatedfrom BritishColumbia to the SelkirkMountains of northernIdaho betweenMarch 1987 and February1992. This translocationwas to assistin recoveryof the endangeredSelkirk population. For all translocatedcaribou combined,estimated annual survivalrates rangedfrom 0.65-0.94 and wereconsistent with declining established populations. No differences(P > 0.10) in survivalwere foundbetween male and femalecaribou or be- tweenmountain and northernecotypes. Causes ofdeath included unknown (n = 14), pre- dation(n = 7), other(n = 4), and human-caused(n = 2), withsummer accounting for the greatestproportion (53o/o). Emigrationof 7 mountainecotype animals also was a loss to the population.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan (2019-2024)
    Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan 2019-2024 Prepared by IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME June 2019 Recommended Citation: Idaho Mountain Goat Management Plan 2019-2024. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, USA. Team Members: Paul Atwood – Regional Wildlife Biologist Nathan Borg – Regional Wildlife Biologist Clay Hickey – Regional Wildlife Manager Michelle Kemner – Regional Wildlife Biologist Hollie Miyasaki– Wildlife Staff Biologist Morgan Pfander – Regional Wildlife Biologist Jake Powell – Regional Wildlife Biologist Bret Stansberry – Regional Wildlife Biologist Leona Svancara – GIS Analyst Laura Wolf – Team Leader & Regional Wildlife Biologist Contributors: Frances Cassirer – Wildlife Research Biologist Mark Drew – Wildlife Veterinarian Jon Rachael – Wildlife Game Manager Additional copies: Additional copies can be downloaded from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game website at fishandgame.idaho.gov Front Cover Photo: ©Hollie Miyasaki, IDFG Back Cover Photo: ©Laura Wolf, IDFG Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) adheres to all applicable state and federal laws and regulations related to discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, gender, disability or veteran’s status. If you feel you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility of IDFG, or if you desire further information, please write to: Idaho Department of Fish and Game, P.O. Box 25, Boise, ID 83707 or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Federal Assistance, Mailstop: MBSP-4020, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Arlington, VA 22203, Telephone: (703) 358-2156. This publication will be made available in alternative formats upon request. Please contact IDFG for assistance. Costs associated with this publication are available from IDFG in accordance with Section 60-202, Idaho Code.
    [Show full text]
  • Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Monitoring Update 610/2019
    Cabinet-Yaak and Selkirk Mountains Grizzly Bear Monitoring Update 610/2019 Wayne Kasworm, US Fish and Wildlife Service, 385 Fish Hatchery Road, Libby, MT 59923 (406) 293-4161 ext 205 [email protected] Reports: https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/es/grizzlyBear.php Our 2019 field season began in early May with the arrival of our field technicians for work and training. We spent almost a week on training before crews dispersed to the field. We have two bear capture teams and one hair collection team in the Cabinet-Yaak plus one trap team and two hair collection teams in the Selkirk Mountains. Crews began capture and hair collection efforts on May 18. Capture efforts will emphasize recapture of existing collar bears. The manufacturer of our radio collars alerted us to a software glitch that is causing many of our collars to malfunction. This year’s collars have had the software updated to avoid the issue. Selkirk Mountains Research Monitoring We began 2019 with five grizzly bears collared in the Selkirk Mountains (3 females and 2 males). Capture activities have resulted in the recapture and collar change on one of the females (Figure 1). Trail cameras at the capture site indicated she was accompanied by a 2 year-old offspring, but that bear was not captured. Trapping will continue near the international border to attempt recapture of the other two females. Cabinet-Yaak Research Monitoring We began 2019 with six collared grizzly bears in the Cabinet-Yaak (2 females and 4 males). One of the females was observed in May with two new cubs.
    [Show full text]
  • Idaho Moose Management Plan 2020-2025
    Idaho Moose Management Plan 2020-2025 DRAFT December 10, 2019 1 This page intentionally left blank. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shiras Moose (Alces alces shirasi) occur across much of Idaho, except for the southwest corner of the state. Moose are highly valued by both hunters and non-hunters, providing consumptive and non-consumptive opportunities that have economic and aesthetic value. Over the past century their known range has expanded from small areas of northern and eastern Idaho to their current distribution. Population size also increased during this time, likely peaking around the late 1990s or early 2000s. The Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG) is concerned that current survey data, anecdotal information and harvest data indicate moose have recently declined in parts of Idaho. Several factors may be impacting moose populations both positively and negatively including predation, habitat change (e.g., roads, development, timber harvest), changing climate, disease or parasites and combinations thereof. IDFG was established to preserve, protect, perpetuate and manage all of Idaho’s fish and wildlife. As such, species management plans are written to set statewide management direction to help fulfill IDFG’s mission. Idaho’s prior moose management plan (Idaho Department of Fish and Game 1990) addressed providing a quality hunting experience, the vulnerability of moose to illegal harvest, protecting their habitat, improving controlled hunt drawing odds and expanding moose populations into suitable ranges. The intent of this revision to the 1990 Moose Management Plan is to provide guidance for IDFG and their partners to implement management actions that will aid in protection and management of moose populations in Idaho and guide harvest season recommendations for the next 6 years.
    [Show full text]
  • The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas Preface Contents
    The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas Preface Contents The Spokane Valley-Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer Atlas presents a compre- Shaded Relief Map ...........................................Front Cover hensive summary of the region’s most precious groundwater resource and Using The is a basic reference of the geographic, geologic and hydrologic characteris- Preface and Contents........................... Inside Front Cover tics of this aquifer. Introduction ........................................................................ 1 Atlas The Atlas is designed in a narrative format supported by graphs, maps Aquifer from Space............................................................. 2 and images. It is intended for broad community use in education, plan- ning, and general technical information. The preparation and publica- Geography........................................................................... 3 tion of the atlas were partially funded by a United States Environmental Aquifer History................................................................... 4 Protection Agency aquifer wellhead protection grant. Climate and Population .................................................... 5 The information was collected and obtained from a variety of sources, If your interest in the Aquifer is including: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Idaho Depart- Geology................................................................................ 6 general, the authors suggest you page ment of Environmental Quality, Panhandle
    [Show full text]
  • Elk Hunting in Idaho: Understanding the Needs and Experiences of Hunters
    ELK HUNTING IN IDAHO: UNDERSTANDING THE NEEDS AND EXPERIENCES OF HUNTERS Prepared by: Nick Sanyal, Ph.D., Associate Professor Ed Krumpe, Ph.D., Professor Alexandria Middleton, Research Assistant University of Idaho, College of Natural Resources For: Idaho Department of Fish and Game August 2012 2 | Page OVERVIEW The main goal of this stuDy of Idaho Elk hunters is to proviDe the Idaho Department of Fish anD Game representative information about the views of elk hunters in Idaho. Descriptions of who they are, what their preferences anD motivations are, how they make Decisions about where to hunt, anD their opinions on various Elk management issues were collecteD in the summer of 2012. This stuDy is the first comprehensive investigation of Idaho Elk hunters since a similar stuDy was conDucteD by the University of Idaho over 20 years ago in 1988-89, anD proviDes an important upDate to knowleDge about Elk hunters. The results proviDeD here, in combination with biological Data, are key to continuing to improve wilDlife planning anD management in the state of Idaho. SURVEY OBJECTIVES This current stuDy was DesigneD to proviDe contemporary Data for the quantification of the following characteristics of a sample Idaho Elk hunters: 1. Hunting Elk hunter profiles (basic Demographics, travel patterns, hunting history, harvest success, zone use); 2. Elk hunting preferences anD motivations; 3. Acceptability of current anD proposeD management strategies anD the trade-offs involved; 4. Decisions about where to hunt; 5. Attributes of a quality Elk hunting experience; 6. Hunting satisfaction; anD 7. Perceptions of preDators METHODS Survey research using a mail back anD web-baseD instrument was useD to collect Data from stratifieD ranDom samples of hunters licenseD to hunt Elk in 2011 Idaho.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 16 – Table of Contents
    SECTION 16 – Table of Contents 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial ............................................ 2 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition ........................... 2 16.2 Wildlife of the Pend Oreille Subbasin ............................................................................ 12 16.3 Summary of Terrestrial Resource Limiting Factors ....................................................... 21 16.4 Interpretation and Synthesis............................................................................................ 24 16-1 16 Pend Oreille Subbasin Assessment – Terrestrial 16.1 Focal Habitats: Current Distribution, Limiting Factors, and Condition Vegetation in the Pend Oreille Subbasin is dominated by interior mixed conifer forest, with montane mixed conifer and lodgepole forests in the high elevations and small areas of montane coniferous wetlands and alpine habitats. Timber management is the primary land use in the Subbasin on National Forest System, BLM, Idaho Department of Lands, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Tribal, and private timberlands. Agriculture, grazing, and urban and rural residential development are other land uses. The largest urban areas within the Subbasin include Newport, Cusick, and Metaline, Washington, and Sandpoint, Priest River, and Clark Fork, Idaho. Figure 13.2 (Section 13) shows the current distribution of wildlife-habitat types in the Pend Oreille Subbasin based on IBIS (2003). Table 16.1 presents the acres of habitats by
    [Show full text]