Natural Resources Component Bonner County ...Fork watershed is the largest sub-unit of the Clark Fork–Pend Oreille research area, comprising nearly 90 percent of the Clark Fork–Pend

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan

Adopted by Resolution of the Bonner County Board of CommissionersMay 8, 2003

Resolution #03-19 recorded May 8, 2003, at Instrument #624303,records of Bonner County, Idaho

BONNER COUNTYPLANNING DEPARTMENT

127 S. First AvenueSandpoint, Idaho 83864(208) 265-1458

Prepared with the assistance of

J-U-B ENGINEERS, Inc.212 N. First Avenue, Ste. 307

Sandpoint, ID 83864

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1 - WATER BODIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 2Section 1.1 - Rivers and Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 2

Clark Fork River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 2Clark Fork Basin Tributary Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 5Pend Oreille River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 6Pend Oreille Basin Tributary Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 8Pack River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 9Priest River . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 14Priest River and Priest Lake Basin Tributary Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 16

Section 1.2 - Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 20Lake Pend Oreille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 20Priest Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 30Upper Priest Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 35East Side Lower Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 35West Side Lower Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 35Cocolalla Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 39Kelso Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 49Round Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 50Granite Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 52Shepherd, Mirror, and Hoodoo Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 54

Section 1.3 - Wetlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 54Section 1.4 - Geothermal Waters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 1 - 56

CHAPTER 2 - VEGETATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 1Section 2.1 - Forests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 1

Forest Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 1Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 1History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 2Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 3

Section 2.2 - Pasture, Range and Crop Land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 4Section 2.3 - Generalized Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 6Section 2.4 - Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2 - 6

CHAPTER 3 - SOILS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 1Section 3.1- Prime farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 1Section 3.2 - Non-Prime Farmland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 4Section 3.3 - Soil Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 7

Engineering Index Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 7Physical & Chemical Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 8Soil and Water Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 8Sewage Disposal Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3 - 9

CHAPTER 4 – FISHERIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 1Section 4.1 - Native Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 1

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - ii

Westslope Cutthroat Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 2Bull Trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 2Mountain Whitefish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 3Pygmy Whitefish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 4Northern pikeminnow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 4

Section 4.2 - Introduced Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 5Brown trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 5Rainbow trout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 5Arctic grayling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 6Kokanee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 6Lake Trout (Mackinaw) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 7Mysis relicta (shrimp) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 8

Section 4.2 - Stream Segments/Shorelines (Spawning, hatching, rearing) . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 8Lake Pend Oreille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 8Upper and Lower Priest Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 9

Section 4.3 - Game Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 9Section 4.4 - Non-Game Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 9Section 4.5 - Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 9

Threats to the Bull Trout Population in Lake Pend Oreille . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 10Bull and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 11Subwatersheds Descriptions/Threats/Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 12

Section 4.6 - Hatcheries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 17Sandpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 17Cabinet Gorge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 4 - 17

CHAPTER 5 - WILDLIFE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 1Section 5.1 - General Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 1Section 5.2 - Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 1Section 5.3 - Big Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 3

Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 3Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 5Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 7Mountain Lion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 8Moose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 9Mountain Goat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 10Bighorn Sheep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 10

Section 5.4 - Upland Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 11Upland Game Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 11Furbearers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 12Predators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 13

Section 5.5 - Non-game Wildlife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 14Section 5.6 - Special Status Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 15

Caribou . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 16Grizzly Bear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 18Bald Eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 19

Section 5.7 - General Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 20Section 5.8 - Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 21

White-tailed Deer and Mule Deer Winter Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 22

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - iii

Elk Winter Range and Calving Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 23Moose Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 23Waterfowl Production, Migration, and Wintering Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 24Bald Eagle Nesting and Foraging Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 25Great Blue Heron Rookeries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 26Harlequin Duck Breeding Streams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 26Grizzly Bear Spring and Fall Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 27Western Grebe Nesting Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 27Black Tern Nesting Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 28Goshawk Nesting Area and Flammulated Owl Nesting Habitat . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 28

Section 5.9 - Wildlife Disturbance Due To Urban Sprawl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 29Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 29Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 31Moose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 32Raptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 32Great Blue Herons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 33Waterfowl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 34Bald Eagles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 34Harlequin Ducks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 5 - 35

CHAPTER 6 – MINERALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 1Section 6.1 - Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 1

Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 1Mining History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 1

Section 6.2 - Non-Metals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 2Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 2Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 2Quantity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 2Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 6 - 3

CHAPTER 7 – BEACHES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7 - 1Section 7.1 - Lake Pend Oreille . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7 - 1Section 7.2 - Priest Lake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 7 - 1

CHAPTER 8 – WATERSHEDS AND AQUIFERS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 1Section 8.1 - Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 1Section 8.2 - Municipal Watersheds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 5

Sandpoint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 5East Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 7City of Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 7

Section 8.3- Aquifers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 7Pend Oreille River (Southside) Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 7Newport Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 9Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 10Priest River Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 11Kootenai Valley Aquifer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 8 - 11

CHAPTER 9 – CLIMATE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 1

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan Table of Contents - iv

Section 9.1 - General Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 1Rainfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 1Snowfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 1Growing Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 2Frost Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 2Cloud Days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 3Temperature Means and Extremes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 4

Section 9.2 - General History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 5Weather Patterns - Winds and Fronts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 5Glaciation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 9 - 7

APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . APPENDIX - 1

GLOSSARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . GLOSSARY - 1

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY - 1

MAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hydrographic Features of Bonner County, IdahoMajor Wetlands Within Bonner County, IdahoCritical Wildlife Habitat in Bonner County, IdahoPrime Farmland in Bonner County, IdahoMajor Aquifers Within Bonner County, IdahoMines Located in Bonner County, Idaho

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan CHAPTER 1 - 1

NATURAL RESOURCES COMPONENTThe Natural Resources Component includes an analysis of water bodies, to include rivers, streams,lakes , and geothermal waters; vegetation, to include wetlands, forests, pasture, range and cropland,generalized vegetation , and sensitive species; soils, to include prime and non-prime farmland , andsoil properties; fisheries, to include hatcheries, stream segments and shorelines of concern, sensitivespecies and populations; wildlife, to include habitat, general species and sensitive species; minerals,to include metals and non-metals; beaches and shorelines, to include locations and facilities;watersheds and aquifers, to include location and size; and climate, to include general statistics andgeneral history.


CHAPTER 1 - WATER BODIES

About 9.5 percent, or 183 square miles, of Bonner County’s total area is surface water–the most ofany Idaho county (County Profiles of Idaho, 1999). Bonner County’s Lake Pend Oreille is Idaho’slargest natural lake, covering 90,000 acres and reaching depths of about 1,200 feet. A map of BonnerCounty’s lakes, rivers and streams titled Hydrographic Features, Bonner County, Idaho is found atthe end of the Natural Resources section of the Comprehensive Plan.

Section 1.1 - Rivers and Streams

Clark Fork River

LocationBonner County lies within a portion of the Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin. The basin encompassesabout 25,000 square miles in western Montana, northern Idaho, and northeastern Washington. Thebasin and its tributaries provide the source of waters entering and leaving Lake Pend Oreille. Theprimary tributary draining this basin, as it affects Bonner County, is the Clark Fork River. The ClarkFork watershed is the largest sub-unit of the Clark Fork–Pend Oreille research area, comprisingnearly 90 percent of the Clark Fork–Pend Oreille Basin and contributing 92 percent of the annualflow to Lake Pend Oreille (U.S. EPA; Hoelscher). The Clark Fork River, which has its headwatersnear Butte, Montana, is fed by the Flathead, Bitterroot, St. Regis, and Blackfoot Rivers beforeflowing into Lake Pend Oreille. Lake Pend Oreille is the source of the Pend Oreille River in northernIdaho (U.S. EPA).

Order or RankingThe order of the Clark Fork River is undetermined due to the interstate nature of the river. The orderis dependent upon the different confluences in the State of Montana (Skille).

SizeClark Fork River is an exceptionally long tributary that extends approximately 350 miles betweenButte, Montana, and Lake Pend Oreille near Clark Fork, Idaho (U.S. EPA).

QualityThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Regions 8 and 10), in cooperation with the states ofMontana, Idaho, and Washington, completed the January 1993 Clark Fork–Pend Oreille BasinWater Quality Study summarizing three years of water quality research in the Clark Fork–PendOreille Basin. The study included a list of Clark Fork River pollutants. (U.S. EPA)

PollutantsFor the Clark Fork River, research findings concluded:• Excessive levels of algae have caused water use impairment in nearly 250 miles of the Clark Fork

River.• About half of the soluble phosphorous is derived from wastewater discharges (sewage treatment

plants, industrial sites), with the other half contributed by non-point sources (stormwater runoff) in


tributary watersheds. Three-fourths of the soluble nitrogen comes from tributaries, with the remainingone-fourth from wastewater discharges.

• The most critical point sources (specific sources) are the municipal wastewater treatment plants andindustrial wastewater facilities located in Montana.

• The largest non-point sources of nutrient loading to the Clark Fork are the Flathead, Bitteroot andBlackfoot Rivers, all located in Montana.

(U.S. EPA)

ClarityThe secchi disc readings ranged from less than 6.6 feet deep during snowmelt runoff in March,April, and May and between 5 feet and 32.8 feet during the remaining months. The mean depth was21.7 feet, and the range was 6.6 to 32.8 feet in 1989. In 1990 the mean depth was 18.7 feet, and therange was 8.2 to 32.8 feet. This reading was recorded near the mouth of the Clark Fork River andhad some of the shallowest water transparency readings during the snowmelt runoff. (Hoelscher)

MineralsInformation not available.

TemperatureDuring 1990, the temperature ranged from 32.2° F to 72.5°F. The warmest temperatures weremeasured in early August. The coolest temperatures were measured in late March at Station 3located closest to the mouth of the Clark Fork River. This is the most recent information and datathat are available on the Clark Fork River. (Hoelscher)

QuantityThe Cabinet Gorge Dam, constructed in 1951 to 1952, regulates flows in the Clark Fork River.Average annual river flow is approximately 22,400 cubic feet per second (cfs). Table 1-1 shows the1991 to 1997 daily high and low water means. A voluntary agreement with the State of Idahoprovides for a minimum flow of 3,000 cfs except for periods of mandatory maintenance and safetyinspections. River flows are augmented by groundwater inflow which contributes at least anadditional 800 cfs below the dam. Cabinet Gorge Dam is operated as a peaking facility, and duringlow flow periods releases from 3,000 cfs to about 20,000 cfs daily. This range varies depending onavailability of water and demand for electricity. During high flow events, the Cabinet Gorge Dammay spill up to 100,000 cfs or more in addition to the power plant’s generating capacity ofapproximately 37,500 cfs. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)


Table 1-1: Water Data–Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids in cubic feet per second

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997Highest DailyMean

80,300 33,900 56,100 33,900 76,000 95,800 131,000

Lowest DailyMean

4,260 3,880 4,120 3,870 3,660 4,190 4,720

(U.S.G.S., 12392000)

DroughtDroughts are less frequent than floods, but can be far more devastating to the economy of the stateas a whole. Major droughts during the past several decades generally were the result of anunseasonable northward displacement of the Pacific high pressure system or the positioning of apolar front at much lower latitudes than usual. Principal droughts in northern Idaho, indicated bystream flow records, occurred during 1929 to 1941, 1944 to 1945, 1977, 1987 to 1992, and 1998 to2000. For most of the Idaho the 1929 to 1941 drought lasted for 11 years despite greater thanaverage stream flows in 1932 and 1938. In northern Idaho, the drought was interrupted by greaterthan average flows from 1932 until 1937. The drought ended in most of the state in 1942 butcontinued in northern Idaho until 1946. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1997)

History/Geology

Watersheds in the Cabinet and Bitterroot Mountains are primarily within the Belt Series bedrocktype, and streams draining the Selkirk Mountains are largely within the Kaniksu batholith (graniticbedrock type). The Belt Series consist of metamorphic sedimentary deposits. These rocks wereformed during the Precambrian period when shallow seas inundated northern Idaho. Themetamorphosed rocks in the basin include argillite, siltite, quartzite, and dolomite.

The Kaniksu batholith formed about 70 to 80 million years ago when large masses of granite magmarose into the upper part of the earth’s crust. As this mass of granite magma rose it caused part of thecrust to shear off and move easterly, forming a part of the Cabinet Mountains. The rising magmahelped form the Selkirk Mountains.

During the Pleistocene epoch, an ice lobe advanced and deepened the lake basin. With retreat of theice and consequent flood of glacial melt water, an outwash plain of poorly consolidated sand, silt,and gravel formed the morain dam that constitutes the southwest shore of Lake Pend Oreille. Thepresent Clark Fork River valley was alternately plugged and scoured by dams of ice and depositeddebris that likely controlled Glacial Lake Missoula. Existing soils in the watershed are derived fromthe erosion of Precambrian metasediments and granitic batholith, volcanic deposition, glacialoutwash, and alluvium.


Watersheds in the Cabinet Mountains tend to be more prone to rapid runoff because of the effectsof scouring by glacial advances. Glacial advances resulted in highly divided watersheds, shallowsoils, and subsoil compaction of glacial tills. Mass erosion plays a significant role. Since differentlayers of till have different water infiltration rates, watersheds draining the Cabinet Mountains tendto have a higher incidence of mass wasting than those in the Pend Oreille basin. As a result of thesedifferent till layers, ground water seeps and springs are more prevalent in tributaries draining theCabinet Mountains to the north of Lake Pend Oreille.

Glaciers acted as ice dams and deposited large amounts of till. Ice in the Pack River Valley dammedmost of the tributary streams upstream of their confluence with Pack River. Fine sandy sedimentsdeposited in the dammed water are known as glacial fluvial deposits. These sandy areas todayappear on mountain side slopes, and are very erosive.

Generally streams on the north and east tend to be more productive and have less fine sediment thanstreams draining the granitic soils of the Selkirk Mountains. Granitic soils tend to be nutrient poor,and fish growth is typically slower in streams flowing from granitic watersheds. Natural waterfallsare found throughout the basin, and preclude use of several tributaries, or portions of tributaries, bymigratory fish. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

Clark Fork Basin Tributary Streams

The next section is dedicated to the Clark Fork River tributary streams that directly affect the basinand associated river. The information listed in Table 1-2 is the only data currently available. Not allstreams have been analyzed for water transparency, temperature, pollutant content, etc. The meanannual flow, peak flow frequency, and a seven-day mean low flow were calculated by mathematicalequation from the Idaho Panhandle National Forest data. The order determined for each stream wasdetermined from the Department of Environmental Quality map data on rivers and correspondingstreams. The order of the various streams in Bonner County is dependent upon the detail andaccuracy of the map. Maps of lesser or greater detail will affect the order of the streams. Theinformation and data provide an overall and general understanding of major tributaries andwatersheds. This information is not to be used for detailed site specific development, but rather forgeneral planning purposes.

Table 1-2: Clark Fork River

Streams Length (mi)

Order AverageAnnual

Flow (cfs)

Peak flow (cfs)

Mean Low(cfs)

Cascade Creek 3.5 2nd (head) 2.6 (head) 33 (head) 0.2 Dry Creek 7.4 2nd 28.4 318 2.6East Fork Lightning Creek 6.6 2nd 13.6 (head)

14.8158 (head)

1711.2 (head) 1.3

Johnson Creek 5.9 3rd 29.5 330 2.7

Streams Length (mi)

Order AverageAnnual

Flow (cfs)

Peak flow (cfs)

Mean Low(cfs)


Lightning Creek 19.2 3rd (mid) 53.8 (mid) 585 (mid) 5.2Lightning Creek aboveRattle Creek

3rd (head) 8.3 (head) 99 (head) 0.7

Porcupine Creek 3.9 2nd 21.4 242 1.9Quartz Creek 2.4 2nd 12.4 144 1.1Rattle Creek 5.1 2nd 20.6 234 1.9Spring Creek 6.7 2nd 23.0 260 2.1Twin Creek 3.9 3rd 29.7 (head)

11.6332 (head)

1352.8 (head) 1.0

Wellington Creek 5.1 2nd 32.2 358 3.0(Idaho Panhandle National Forests, DEQ 1993)

Pend Oreille River

The Pend Oreille River drains Lake Pend Oreille. Its basin lies mainly in Pend Oreille County, asparsely settled rural region in northeast Washington.

Much of the river basin’s land falls within the boundaries of the Kaniksu or Colville NationalForests. The basin’s topography consists of river bottom flatlands in a long and narrow troughbetween the Selkirk Mountains and Okanagan Highlands. Agriculture on the lowland plains includesgrain crops, hay pasture, and livestock. The area is largely forested with rough mountainous terrain.Private land ownership is concentrated on river and lake shorelines. (U.S. EPA)

Order or RankingThe order or ranking of the Pend Oreille River is undetermined due to the interstate nature of theriver.

SizeThe Pend Oreille River begins at the railroad bridge paralleling the “Long Bridge” near Sandpoint,Idaho, continuing to the City of Priest River, Idaho through the Albeni Falls Dam and into the stateof Washington.

Quality: PollutantsThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Regions 8 and 10), in cooperation with the states ofMontana, Idaho and Washington, completed the January, 1993 Clark Fork – Pend Oreille BasinWater Quality Study summarizing three years of water quality research in the Clark Fork – PendOreille Basin. The study included a management plan for protection of the basin’s water quality.

For the Pend Oreille River, research findings concluded:


• The main stem of the Pend Oreille River has water quality that is generally good and in the “oligo-mesotrophic” range (limited to moderate amounts of dissolved nutrients).

• The primary water quality concern on the Pend Oreille River is the proliferation of Eurasian watermilfoil, an invasive and adaptable plant.

• Several tributaries exceed standards for fecal coliform bacteria content. • Non-point sources of pollutants in the Pend Oreille River Basin that potentially affect the river are

animal keeping practices, agriculture, on-site sewage disposal, stormwater and highway runoff, forestpractices, land development, landfills, and gravel extraction.

Recommendations for the Pend Oreille River included:

• Controlling Eurasian water milfoil by education, rotovation, and research into alternative methods.Milfoil needs to be aggressively managed.

• Protecting Lake Pend Oreille water by maintaining or reducing current rates of nutrient loading fromthe Clark Fork River.

• Reducing nearshore eutrophication in Lake Pend Oreille by reducing nutrient load from local sources.• Improving Pend Oreille River water quality through macrophyte (plant) management and tributary

non-point source controls.(U.S. EPA)

Quality: Clarity

The mean depth secchi disc reading was 11.5 feet and the range was 3.6 to 23.3 feet in 1989. In 1990the mean depth reading was 11.5 and the range was 4.9 to 23.3 feet. This reading was recorded nearthe mouth of the Pend Oreille River near the City of Sandpoint. (Hoelscher)

Quality: TemperatureThe Pend Oreille River is several degrees warmer than Pend Oreille Lake. Temperatures rangedfrom 36.0° F to 71.6° F and up to 79.7° F in the nearshore water. The warmest water temperaturesin the river were measured in early to mid-August and the coolest in late January. (Hoelscher)

Quantity: High Water/Low WaterThe flow of Pend Oreille River is regulated at Albeni Falls Dam and affected by storage in LakePend Oreille, Flathead Lake, Hungry Horse Reservoir, and several smaller reservoirs. Table 1-3shows water data for the Pend Oreille River in cubic feet per second (cfs).

Table 1-3: Water Data—Pend Oreille River in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs)



86400 30000 52800 30200 64000 94700 128000

Lowest Daily Mean 6840 3280 8440 4240 5000 11800 9640(U.S.G.S. 12395000)

Pend Oreille Basin Tributary Streams

The next section is dedicated to the streams that directly affect Lake Pend Oreille. The informationlisted is the only data currently available. Not all streams have been analyzed for water transparency,temperature, pollutant content, etc. Unnamed streams and small minor streams that have very littledata research on them are not mentioned. Table 1-4 represents the most significant streams. Themean annual flow, peak flow frequency, and a seven-day mean low flow were calculated bymathematical equation from the Idaho Panhandle National Forest data. The order for each streamwas determined from the Department of Environmental Quality map data on rivers andcorresponding streams. The order of the various streams in Bonner County is dependent upon thedetail and accuracy of the map. Maps of lesser or greater detail will affect the order of the streams.

Table 1-4: Pend Oreille Basin

Streams Length(mi)

Order Average Annual(cfs)

Peak flow (cfs) Mean Low(cfs)

Butler Creek 4.5 1st --- --- ---Canyon Creek 3.1 2nd 7.5 89 0.6Caribou Creek 3.1 2nd 35.4 392 3.3Cedar Creek 4.0 2nd

Chloride Gulch 3rd 0.8 to 2.5 10 to 26 0.1 to 0.2Cocolalla Creek 15.5 3rd

Falls Creek 8.0 3rd 5.1 62 0.4Fish Creek 4.0 3rd

Gold Creek 7.9 2nd 18.8 215 1.7Granite Creek 9.8 1st 0.4 to 5.9 5 to 71 0.0 to 0.5Grouse Creek 19.4 3rd 27.8 312 2.6Hell Roaring Creek 6.4 2nd 24.7 278 2.3Hoodoo Creek 20.3 2nd 135.3 1406 14.0Jeru Creek 3.1 2nd 13.4 155 1.2Johnson Creek 2.0 2nd --- --- ---McCormick Creek 4.3 2nd 11.5 134 1.0North Fork GrouseCreek

2.5 2nd 6.5 78 0.5

Streams Length(mi)

Order Average Annual(cfs)

Peak flow (cfs) Mean Low(cfs)


Pack River (total) 32.5 4th 463 594 280Rapid LightningCreek

11.8 3rd 65.8(lower 4.1)

708(lower 4.1)

6.5(lower 4.1)

Riley Creek 6.7 3rd 11.9 (head) 139 (head) 0.7 (head)Riser Creek 3.1 3rd 6.7 80 0.6Sagle Creek 4.0 --- --- --- ---Sand Creek 10.2 3rd 35.2 389 3.3Schweitzer Creek 4.3 2nd 13.2 153 1.2Strong Creek 3.1 2nd 1.8 23 0.1Trapper Creek --- 2nd 18.7 213 1.7Trestle Creek 8.6 2nd 17.6 201 1.6Trout Creek 4.7 2nd 4.7 57 0.4West Gold Creek 5.4 3rd .04 to 2.3 6 to 66 0.1 to 0.5Westmond Creek 4.3 2nd --- --- —

(Idaho Panhandle National Forests; DEQ, Cocolalla Lake Watershed; DEQ database)

Pack River

The Pack River is a tributary to north Lake Pend Oreille, spanning nearly 40 miles and providinga range of uses from domestic and agricultural water supplies to cold water biota, salmonidspawning, and primary and secondary contact recreation.

The Pack River basin supports diverse land uses and contains lands under private, state, andfederal ownership. Land ownership for the entire watershed (101,207 acres) can be broken downto the following percentages: US Forest Service - 55.0%; Private lands - 36.0%; State lands -6.6%; and Bureau of Land Management - 2.4%. Primary ownership of the headwaters is federal(Forest Service), while the lower reaches are under private ownership.

Size

The Pack River is the second largest tributary to Lake Pend Oreille, and is in turn fed by anumber of significant tributary watersheds. The watershed encompasses 101,207 acres ofBonner and Boundary counties in north central Idaho, and drains in to the northern tip of LakePend Oreille between the communities of Hope and Sandpoint.

Quantity


Pack River and its tributaries often experience one or more run-off events. Mid-winter rain-on-snow events can result in rapid snow melt, and in some years the peak flow from tributarywatersheds occurs during these events. Due to high precipitation results, location in relation tothe lake and prevailing winds, tributaries draining the Cabinet Mountains are particularlysusceptible to rain-on-snow events.

Quality: Pollutants

Land uses of the Lower Pack River, as identified by the IDHW-DEQ (1993) are reported out of atotal of 106,993 acres as follows: Forest - 87524 acres (81.8% of total); Agriculture - 5266acres (4.9%); Livestock - 6365 acres (6.0%); Timber/Grazing - 1,223; Mining - 15 acres; Transportation - 694 acres; Residential - 3311 acres (3.1%); Commercial - 12 acres; Industrial- 74 acres (0.1%); Public parks and recreation - 361 acres (0.3%); Surface water - 356 acres(0.3%). These uses, coupled with the Sundance fire in 1967, have influenced fish habitatconditions and water quality in the Pack River.

Watersheds in the Cabinet Mountains tend to be more prone to rapid run-off events due to theeffects of scour by glacial advances. These glacial events resulted in highly dissectedwatersheds (i.e. high density of streams), shallow soils, and subsoil compaction of glacial tills.

The Pack River basin has more glacial fluvial deposits than any other basin in the Pend Oreillewatershed, and the underlying geology is largely granitic in origin. As a result, sand-sizedsediment is the primary material that is eroded and transported in streams. Fish habitat featuresare less likely to change from channel adjustments, but the river is prone to high levels of finesediment which occur where hillside or stream bank erosion rates, and in-channel deposition, ishigh.

Loss of riparian vegetation and associated root masses due to fire, salvage, timber harvesting,livestock grazing or clearing reduces bank stability and results in delivery of fine sediment to thestream channel.

The Pack River was listed for nutrient, sediment, dissolved oxygen, habitat alterations,pathogens, and pesticide pollution. Pack River’s water quality is limited due to excess sedimentand nutrients. Monitoring data indicate that dissolved oxygen, pesticides and pathogensconcentrations do not violate Idaho Water Quality Standards. Target load for sediment is 15,635tons/yr (a reduction of 45,465.6 tons/yr). Target loads for nutrients are: 5,307 kg/yr totalphosphorus (a reduction of 15,293 kg/yr) and 45,815 kg/yr total nitrogen (a reduction of 51,985kg/yr).

Point Source Discharges

There are no permitted point source discharges to the Pack River or its tributaries.

Nonpoint Source Discharges


There were five primary nonpoint sources of pollution identified by the Panhandle Bull TroutTechnical Advisory Team as limiting water quality in the Pack River main stem watershed. These sources are identified and described as follows:

Urbanization - Significant floodplain development, increased urban run-off, stream riparian zoneclearing, and stream channel alterations are all factors associated with urban development whichcurrently limit water quality and beneficial uses in the watershed.

Roads - Pack River has an extensive road system on private, state and federal lands. Because ofthe sandy soils, fine sediment is readily transported from roads to stream channels. Threerailroads (Burlington Northern Santa Fe, Union Pacific, and Montana Rail Link) and twohighways (US 95 and Idaho 200) cross Lower Pack River, creating a risk from toxic spills.

Wildfire - The Sundance Fire, which occurred in 1967, was the last major forest fire in the PackRiver watershed. It burned nearly 55,000 acres of mature and second growth timber in theSelkirk Mountains, Pack River and Roman Nose Creek drainages. The fire burned a largeportion of the riparian areas in the upper Pack River drainage. Legacy effects of the SundanceFire are still visible in the Pack River system.

Agriculture/Livestock Grazing - Use of land for agriculture practices has been ongoing for manyyears in the Pack River drainage. Grazing occurs in the lower two-thirds of the watershed, andmuch of the Pack River is considered open range. Crop production occurs in the watershed frombelow the Highway 95 bridge to the inlet at Lake Pend Oreille. Large cedar trees and riparianvegetation was removed years ago. Impacts to the stream channel in lower reaches have occurredover a long period of time and continue to be a factor in the decreasing habitat condition today.

Timber Harvest - Most timber harvest since 1967 has taken place on private and federal lands inthe lower two-thirds of the watershed that were not burned by the Sundance Fire. Salvagelogging occurred in burned areas, possibly reducing large woody debris recruitment to streamchannels. Harvest is currently taking place in areas missed by the fire where merchantabletimber was left (Sundance Missed Timber Sale). Timber harvest on private lands is alsooccurring.

Summary of Past and Present Pollution Control Efforts

As a result of citizen concerns about increased aquatic weed and algae growth in the Clark ForkRiver, Pend Oreille Lake and Pend Oreille River, the U.S. Congress added language to the 1987Clean Water Act Amendments (P.L.100-4, Feb.4, 1987) that directed EPA to study the sourcesof nutrient pollution in the basin. A comprehensive three-year study led to the development ofthe Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study, A Summary of Findings and aManagement Plan (EPA 1993), designed to protect and restore water quality in the watershedsfrom nutrient pollution. The Tri-State Implementation Council was established in October 1993,to oversee implementation of the Plan. The Council’s primary goals and accomplishments aredirected toward protection of Lake Pend Oreille and Clark Fork River. Examples ofaccomplishments which work to protect water quality in the Pack River include:


1. Enacted a basin-wide phosphate detergent ban.2. Offered educators tours of the watershed.3. Established and currently maintaining a water quality monitoring network throughout

the basin.4. Assisted Bonner County in developing an effective stormwater and erosion control

ordinance.

Avista (formerly Washington Water Power), as part of its relicensing process for the Noxon andCabinet Gorge hydro-power projects, agreed to certain protection, mitigation, and enhancementmeasures. Many of these projects will benefit the water quality of the Pack River. Streamimprovement projects, fish passage projects, habitat restoration, bank stabilization and similartypes of activities should benefit both fish habitat and water quality.

In 1993, Bonner County adopted a stormwater ordinance which, if enforced, would provide foradequate protection of the lake and its tributaries from sedimentation as a result of various landdisturbing activities.

The Idaho Forest Practices Act has recently added the Cumulative Watershed Effects Process forIdaho (Idaho Cumulative Effects Task Force 1995) to its tools to evaluate problem watersheds. This process enables the forest practices advisor to recommend additional protection measures toaddress cumulative effects of timber harvest. In areas which have been heavily roaded or areprone to unstable geology, site specific Best Management Practices, developed from this processshould significantly reduce sedimentation of streams.

In addition, Lake Pend Oreille has been designated a Special Resource Water (IDAPA16.01.02.056). As a tributary to a Special Resource Water, the Pack River cannot have a pointsource discharge which will result in a reduction of ambient water quality of the lake.

In June 1995, the US Fish and Wildlife Service status review found listing bull trout (Salvelinusconfluentus) as threatened or endangered was warranted under the Endangered Species Act. OnJuly 1, 1996, Governor Phil Batt and the State of Idaho issued a Bull Trout Conservation Planoutlining proactive measures to be taken by the state to restore bull trout populations in Idaho. The Plan utilizes the Basin Advisory Group and Watershed Advisory Group framework, initiallydeveloped for dealing with 303(d) water quality listed streams under Idaho Code (39-3601). Theplan would provide for local development of watershed specific plans to maintain and/orincrease bull trout populations and meet the needs of the surrounding communities in Idaho. While the state will not mandate how local communities protect the species, it will insist onmeeting the goal of protecting and maintaining the species.

In 1996 the main stem Pack River (Hwy. 95 to Pend Oreille Lake) was added to the 303(d) list aswater quality impaired, due to excess nutrients, sediments, low dissolved oxygen gas, excessivehabitat alterations, pathogens, and pesticides.The Pack River has designated uses of domestic and agricultural water supply, cold water biota,salmonid spawning, and primary and secondary contact recreation. Of these beneficial uses,only industrial water supply, wildlife habitat, and aesthetics were identified as having fullsupport status according to 1996 Waterbody Assessment Guidance analysis. This segment was


also listed in the 1994 305(b) report as a Stream Segment of Concern for the same pollutantsmentioned in the 1996 303(d) list.

Fine sediment, lack of large woody debris to create pools and cover, and elevated temperaturesresulting from loss of shade (habitat alterations) are believed to be significant limiting factors ofbull trout production in the Pack River. Three railroads and two highways cross Lower PackRiver in the migration corridor, creating a risk to migrating bull trout from toxic spills.

The Pack River has been found to contribute the highest ratio of nutrients per unit of land of anywatershed in the Pend Oreille Basin. This is likely a result of the high ratio of sediment that isproduced within the watershed due to the geology of the watershed and the heavy land use in thelower reaches of the Pack River.

There is also some evidence that the Pack River is nitrogen limited at certain times of the year. The ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus found in the Pack River in 1989 was approximately 5:1. Atotal nitrogen to total phosphorus ratio in lakes greater than 15:1 indicates phosphorus limitation. A lower ratio is typically found in eutrophic lakes with frequent algae blooms. Specificinformation on nutrient ratios for rivers was not found.

The cause for the listing of pesticides as a pollutant may have been due to the construction of agolf course at the mouth of the Pack River, road side spraying of noxious weeds, fungicide use ina tree nursery, or lawn care products (DEQ).

Uses reported to be currently impaired or not fully supported are: agricultural and domesticwater supply due to pathogens and pesticides; primary and secondary contact recreation due toexcess nutrients; cold water biota due to excessive sediment, low dissolved oxygen andpesticides; and salmonid spawning due to sediment and low levels of dissolved oxygen.

The Pack River has been found to be the second greatest source of nutrients to Pend OreilleLake. The state water quality standards under IDAPA 16.01.02.200.06 states, "Surface waters ofthe state shall be free from excess nutrients that can cause visible slime growths or othernuisance aquatic growths impairing designated beneficial uses.” Identifying and controllingnutrient sources in the Pack River watershed has been proposed as a management alternative forreducing nearshore eutrophication in Pend Oreille Lake.

The main stem Pack River has been listed as not supporting its designated beneficial uses. Theinformation currently available suggests that nutrients and sediment are pollutants causing thisimpairment. It is apparent from current data that there are widespread and diverse impactsaffecting this river segment and additional study is required. Pathogens, pesticides and dissolvedoxygen have been discovered to be within full support limits, and therefore will be de-listed forthese pollutants (Idaho DEQ, March 2001).In 2003, the Bonner County Board of Commissioners designated the waters of the Pack Riverupstream of the Highway 200 bridge as a non-motorized vessel zone to protect wildlife habitatand natural vegetation and to reduce hazards to the general public.

Priest River


Order/SizePriest River drains into the Pend Oreille River near the City of Priest River. The total distance of thePriest River system from the international boundary to the Pend Oreille River is approximately 88miles. Upper Priest River originates within the Nelson Mountain Range of British Columbia, andcrosses into Idaho approximately six miles from its origin. It flows for a distance of 18.5 miles fromthe international boundary to Upper Priest Lake north of the Thoroughfare, which is a 2.7 mile longchannel with little to no gradient connecting Upper Priest Lake and Priest Lake. From the PriestLake outlet, the Priest River flows for a distance of 45.5 miles to its confluence with the PendOreille River. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

Quality: PollutantsBased on water samples collected from the Priest River near the City of Priest River, the generalquality of the river is good. Concentrations of dissolved solids, indicated by specific conductanceand concentrations of the major chemical constituents, are low. Cations, anions, and nutrients areall within established criteria for domestic water supplies, aquatic life, and other defined uses.

Five miles below Priest Lake, the Dickensheet gauge showed an increase in total dissolved solidsas the river flowed through the lower part of the basin. This difference was the largest during the lowflow period of July through October, and was likely the result of more intensive land use within thelower valley. Seasonally, the lowest levels of dissolved solids were observed during spring runoff,and the highest levels were noted during low flow periods. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

Six streams or stream reaches within the Priest River Basin are currently listed under Section 303(d)of the of the Clean Water Act as “water quality impaired”: • Kalispell Creek• Reeder Creek• Binarch Creek• East River• Lower West Branch Priest River from Priest River to the Washington state line• Priest River from the upper West Branch of the Priest River to the Pend Oreille River

Support of the beneficial uses of the streams are currently being evaluated by the Idaho Departmentof Environmental Quality. (DEQ, 1998)

Quality: Minerals, Chemistry, and TurbidityTable 1-5 in the Appendix details the chemical quality of the Priest River.


Quality: TemperatureSummertime water temperatures approach the maximum limit for cold water biota. Cold water biotaincludes the salmonid fishes, aquatic insects, and other life forms that require cool (maximumtemperature not to exceed 22°C), well oxygenated water. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

Quantity: High Water/Low Water

Table 1-6 in the Appendix details high water data for the Priest River in cfs. Additionally:

• Total appropriations of surface water sources within the lower Priest River Basin are 500,000 acre-feet. Nonconsumptive water appropriations for stream flows comprise the largest use.

• The Idaho Water Resource Water Board has a permit for minimum stream flows ranging from 18 to70 cfs on the East River.

• Irrigation and domestic supply are the major consumptive uses. Irrigation and domestic use relyprimarily on surface water.

• Stockwater appropriations in the lower basin total 1,000 acre-feet. Surface water is the source for 93percent of the stockwater developments.

• Six sites on the Priest River below Priest Lake have attracted eight hydroelectric project proposals.(Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

History/GeologyThis area is associated with rock types with the Idaho Batholith, and may also occur locally asplutonic intrusions within the Priest River uplands. Undifferentiated deposits of alluvium, primarilyof glacial origin, fill lowlands of the valley and lake basins. Remnants of identifiable glacial activitywithin the basin include:

• A terminal moraine situated just north of the City of Priest River.• Thinly laminated sediments likely representing the existence of glacial meltwater ponds within the

Priest River valley.• Extensive deposits of outwash and moraine materials located just south of Priest Lake.

Soils within the basin are derived principally from glacial drift with parent material consisting ofgranite and silica rich, locally limey, metamorphic rocks. Soils range from rock outcrops onmountains to level soils with varying permeability on glacial moraines and terraces. (Idaho WaterResource Board, 1995)

Priest River and Priest Lake Basin Tributary Streams

Priest Lake and Priest River are within the Priest River Basin. The Priest River Basin is within thenorthern Rocky Mountain physiographic province. Lowlands of the Priest River Valley and thePriest Lake Basin are flanked by the Priest Lake and Western Cuban uplands to the west, and theSelkirk Mountain range and Eastern Cuban uplands to the east. Snow Valley separates the PriestLake and Western Cuban uplands. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

The Priest Lake Basin contains two high quality lakes: a smaller Upper Priest Lake with a surfacearea of 1,338 acres, and Priest Lake which is the third largest natural lake in Idaho with an area of23,000 acres. The basin contains 592 square miles and is located primarily within the northwest


corner of the Idaho Panhandle. Headwaters of Upper Priest River originate within the NelsonMountain Range of British Columbia (24 square miles of the basin). Headwaters of major tributarieson the western side of the basin originate in northeast Washington (about 100 square miles of thebasin). The basin is flanked on the east by the Selkirk Mountain Range, and bordered on the westby the mountain crest separating the Kaniksu and Colville National Forests. Elevation within thebasin ranges from 2,435 feet at lake level (low winter pool) to more than 7,000 feet within theSelkirks. (Rothrock)

The next section is dedicated to the Priest River and Priest Lake streams that directly affect the basinand associated river. The information listed is the only data currently available. Not all streams havebeen analyzed for turbidity, temperature, pollutant content, etc. Unnamed streams and small minorstreams that have very little data research on them are not mentioned. The table below representsthe most significant streams. The mean annual flow, peak flow frequency, and a seven-day mean lowflow were calculated by mathematical equation from the Idaho Panhandle National Forest data. Thedata provided by the Idaho Panhandle National Forest Service are to be used for general planningpurposes only. The database is constantly being updated. If more specific development occurs in anygiven watershed, more detailed site specific research needs to be completed.

Order/SizeThe order for each stream was determined from the Department of Environmental Quality map dataon rivers and corresponding streams. The order of the various streams in Bonner County isdependent upon the detail and accuracy of the map. Maps of lesser or greater detail will affect theorder of the streams. The information and data provide an overall and general understanding ofmajor tributaries and watersheds.

The information in Table 1-7, which is located in the Appendix, is to be used for general planningpurposes only. It is not to be used for detailed, site-specific development.

Tables 1-8 and 1-9 represent other data that provide a summary of flow from gauged tributaries,ungauged streams and precipitation for water years 1994 and 1995. This information is from a studythe DEQ completed on Priest Lake.

Table 1-8: Summary of Priest Lake Flows 1994

Tributary 1994Annual mean

daily (cfs)Spring mean

daily/maximum(cfs) (a)

Annualvolume(ac-ft)

% oftotal

inflowvolume

Annualyield (ac-ft/ acre)

Gauged - Upper PriestLakeUpper Priest River (b) 184 607/940 132,000 49.0 2.9

Gauged - Lower PriestLake




Annualvolume(ac-ft)

% oftotal

inflowvolume



The Thoroughfare (c) 428 1216/2522 309,650 42.2 --Granite 143 363/952 103,450 14.1 1.6Lion 74 274/506 53,350 7.3 2.9Two Mouth 52 191/351 37,660 5.1 2.4Indian 44 180/344 32,085 4.4 2.1Soldier 36 105/252 26,110 3.6 1.7Hunt 35 113/205 25,530 3.5 2.1Kalispell 28 81/138 20,615 2.8 0.8Reeder 14 44/70 10,185 1.4 1.2Beaver 12 43/92 8,310 1.1 1.2

Total volume of gaugedstreams to Lower Priest(d)

626,950 85.4

Precipitation on surface 42,630 5.8Total ungauged watervolume

44,870 6.1

Total surface watervolume

714,450 97.3

Estimated ground waterinflow

20,000 2.7

Lower Priest River atDickensheet campground(e)

900 --/3,830 651,600


Table 1-9: Summary of Priest Lake Flows 1995




Annualvolume(ac-ft)

% of totalinflowvolume


Gauged - Upper PriestLakeUpper Priest River (b) 192 458/926 138,595 45.0 3.0

Gauged - Lower PriestLakeThe Thoroughfare (c) 510 1201/2443 369,550 38.3Granite 205 463/969 148,170 15.4 2.3Lion 91 220/550 65,870 6.8 3.6Two Mouth 81 191/454 58,385 6.1 3.7Indian 59 150/361 42,620 4.4 2.8Soldier 48 111/246 34,400 3.6 2.2Hunt 45 94/220 32,585 3.4 2.7Kalispell 38 105/153 27,460 2.8 1.1Reeder 20 46/64 14,270 1.5 1.7Beaver 18 49/98 13,270 1.4 2.0

Total volume of gaugedstreams to Lower Priest(d)

806,415 83.6

Precipitation on surface 70,780 7.3Total ungauged watervolume

67,770 7.1

Total surface watervolume

944,965 97.9

Estimated ground waterinflow

20,000 2.1

Lower Priest River atDickensheet campground(e)

1257 --/4650 910,000

a) Spring high flow runoff for water year 1994 was designated as March 18th through June 15th for westside streams, and April 17th through June 15th for east side streams (including Upper Priest River andThe Thoroughfare). For water year 1995, spring runoff was designated as March 10th through June30th for all streams.

b) Upper Priest River at U.S.F.S. gauge station, above confluence with Hughes Fork and Ruby Creek.


c) The Thoroughfare flow is modeled using gauged data for Upper Priest River, modeled flows forTrapper Creek, Hughes Fork, and Caribou Creek, plus numerous discrete flow measurements on TheThoroughfare.

d) The addition of flows from The Thoroughfare down to Beaver Creeke) Lower Priest River, 5.2 miles downstream from lake outlet, at U.S.G.S. gauge station. This flow data

includes water from the Lamb Creek and Binarch Creek drainages which are downstream fromLower Priest Lake.

(Rothrock and Mosier)

Section 1.2 - Lakes

Lake Pend Oreille

Size/DepthLake Pend Oreille is the largest and deepest lake in Idaho. The majority of the lake is within BonnerCounty. Compared with the surface areas and maximum depths of natural fresh water lakes in theUnited States, Lake Pend Oreille is the 21st largest and 5th deepest. Its maximum depth is exceededonly by Lake Superior, Lake Chelan, Lake Tahoe, and Crater Lake. Normal full pool elevation is2,062.5 feet mean sea level. Normal drawdown reduces the lake surface elevation about 11.5 feetto 2,051.0 feet mean sea level. Drawdown commences after Labor Day and reaches a minimumaround the first of November. Lake levels are maintained through the winter and early spring.During this time, lake mudflats are exposed in the northern lake bays until the annual springsnowmelt. Winter pool was maintained at 2,055 feet during the winters of 1997, 1998, and 1999 toprovide more kokanee spawning habitat.

Recreation, power supplies, flood control, fisheries, aesthetic beauty, water supplies and commercialventures are all affected by the level of the lake. Prior to the construction of the Albeni Falls Dam,the lake filled to 2052 to 2053 feet in a dry, low-flow spring and reached elevations of 2062.5 andgreater in wetter years. Elevations receded to 2051 after spring run-off, in typical years (Schloss).

Nowadays, the lake level is regulated to allow for power generation and storage room toaccommodate spring flooding. However, the lower winter lake level of 2051 feet is believed byfisheries experts to adversely affect kokanee and bull trout spawning areas.

But the higher lake level results affect power generation. Every vertical foot of lake level is worthnearly $3 million, in terms of federal power generation values. So a drawdown of 11 feet has avalue of $33 million (Schloss). Lake Pend Oreille was held at 2055 to 2055.5 for the winter of2002-03, representing a $12 million to $12.5 million difference in power generation value from thelower winter level.

Recent discussions about alterations to the lake level during summer months have raised the concernof those who depend on higher water levels for recreation and tourism needs.

A bill creating a commission to review issues relative to the quality and quantity of Lake PendOreille, including lake levels, was enacted by the 2003 Idaho Legislature and signed into law by theGovernor of Idaho. The Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, Priest Lake and Priest RiverCommission was created at the urging of Bonner County lawmakers and those affected by the lake


quality and quantity issues. The seven-member board will study, develop and select strategies asthey relate to the quality and quantity issues. The goal of the commission is to preservation of nativefish, scenic beauty, health, recreation, transportation and commercial purposes “necessary anddesirable for all the inhabitants of the state (Legislature of the State of Idaho).

Two distinct basins characterize the lake. The large, deep southern basin has a surface area of 89.7square miles and mean depth of 720.5 feet and contains about 95 percent of the lake’s volume.Water flowing into the southern basin will reside there in excess of 10 years. The northern basin ischaracterized by a relatively shallow mean depth of 95.1 feet. Water flowing into the northern basinwill reside there much less than one year.

Two zones of water exist in Lake Pend Oreille. Each has different characteristics. A narrow bandof water near shore, the littoral zone, surrounds a large, open body of water, the pelagic zone. Thelittoral zone is that band of water along the shore where light penetrates to the lake bottom. Attachedand rooted aquatic plants grow in this zone. In general, the littoral zone encompasses depths less that52.5 feet. The littoral zone accounted for about 27 percent of Lake Pend Oreille and Pend OreilleRiver surface area while only nine percent of the volume. (Hoelscher)

Table 1-10 indicates selected morphometric characteristics of Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho, at normalfull pool elevation of 2,062.5 feet mean sea level.

Table 1-10: Lake Pend Oreille

Characteristic MeasurementSurface Area 128.3 ft2

Maximum depth 1,171.3 ftMean depth 532.5 ftVolume 1,903,460,536,288.23 ft3

Hydraulic residence time (1989) 2.6 yearHydraulic residence time (1990) 2.1 yearWatershed area 22,905.0 ft2

Watershed and surface area ratio 178.6Hydraulic residence time included both Lake Pend Oreille and Pend Oreille River. (Hoelscher)

QualityThe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Regions 8 and 10), in cooperation with the States ofMontana, Idaho and Washington, completed the January, 1993, Clark Fork–Pend Oreille BasinWater Quality Study summarizing three years of water quality research in the Clark Fork–PendOreille Basin. The Study included a management plan for protection of the basin’s water quality.(U.S. EPA)

For Lake Pend Oreille, research findings concluded:


• Open lake water quality has not changed statistically since the mid-1950s.• There is a high correlation between total phosphorous loading from nearshore and local

tributaries and the degree of urban development. • The greatest share (more than 90 percent) of water entering the lake comes from the Clark

Fork River inflow, as does about 85 percent of the total loading of phosphorous, the nutrientthat limits algae growth in the lake.

• Maintenance of open lake water quality is largely dependent on maintaining nutrientloadings from the Clark Fork River at or below present levels.

• Pack River, followed by Sand Creek, are the tributaries discharging the highest phosphorousloads per unit of land area to the lake. Lightning Creek, Pack River, and Sand Creek havethe highest nitrogen levels.

Existing ConditionsAccording to the 2000 census, the population of Bonner County is 36,835 people. Approximatelyone half of Bonner County residents live along the north shore of Lake Pend Oreille withinincorporated cities or surrounding rural areas. In addition to the population in the immediate vicinity,the lake area draws from population centers in the states of Idaho, Washington, and Montana andthe Canadian provinces of Alberta, inland British Columbia, and Saskatchewan. Seasonal residentsfrom urban centers throughout the West are common. It is estimated the resident population of thenorthern lake shore increases by about 40 percent during the summer months.

Development of seasonal and year round homes and recreation sites continues to grow at a rapidpace. The increase of the build out of approved subdivisions to residential parcels is one third to onehalf. Nearly half of these parcels are located within one half mile of the lake shore. Soils in theseareas are poorly suited to roads, dwellings and recreational development because of steep slopes,erosion hazards, or seasonally perched water tables.

Lake Pend Oreille is used extensively for recreation and water supplies. Over one million visits todeveloped public recreational facilities have been recorded annually, with an additional 30,000angler visits also recorded. It has been estimated that this region has one of the highest per capitaboat ownership rates in the country. Lake Pend Oreille is also a potable water supply for numerousshoreline dwellings, as well as a supplemental water supply for the City of Sandpoint, the county’slargest city. Other non-designated uses include underwater acoustic research, and a storage reservoirfor hydroelectric power generation. (Hoelscher)

Hydrologic Budget of Lake Pend OreilleHydrologic budgets were determined for Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River upstreamfrom Albeni Falls Dam. Annual inflows to the lake and river were about 738,076,534,479.11 ft3 inwater year 1989 and 939,370,134,791.5964 ft3 in water year 1990.

Inflows were dominated by the Clark Fork River. In both years, the river accounted for 85 percentof the total inflow. Considering Lake Pend Oreille only, the Clark Fork River suppliesapproximately 92 percent of its waters. During water year 1989, the Clark Fork River was 93 percentof its long term average annual flow and 116 percent in water year 1990.


Priest River was the second largest inflow component of the hydrologic budget. Its flow entered thePend Oreille River and, therefore, did not contribute directly to Lake Pend Oreille. The third largestcomponent was ungauged runoff. About one third of the ungauged runoff entered the Pend OreilleRiver and again did not affect the lake. Of the minor gauged runoff entering Lake Pend Oreille, thePack River inflow was the largest. (A state study of the river and its water quality is not available,according to the DEQ.) Lightning Creek yielded the largest amount of water per unit of drainagearea; 0.0012 km3/km2 in water year 1989 and 0.0015 km3/km2 in water year 1990. These yields weregenerally twice those of other gauged runoff.

The only surface outflow is the Pend Oreille River. It accounted for nearly all the water flowing outof the basin. Recharge to the Spokane Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer was reported at 0.044 km3.A much smaller groundwater flow near the lake outflow recharged the Southside Aquifer. Table 1-11 represents a distribution of annual inflows to Lake Pend Oreille and Pend Oreille River upstreamfrom Albeni Falls Dam, Idaho, during water years 1989 and 1990. (Hoelscher)

Table 1-11: Annual Inflows to Lake Pend Oreille

1989 1990Clark Fork 85.3% 85.0%Lightning Creek 1.7% 1.7%Pack River 2.2% 2.1%Priest River 6.0% 6.3%Sand Creek 0.3% 0.3%Ungauged runoff 3.1% 3.3%Precipitation 1.3% 1.2%Wastewater 0.1% 0.1%

(Hoelscher)

Nutrient Budget of Lake Pend OreilleLike a hydrologic budget, a nutrient budget is an accounting of nutrients in water flowing into andout of a basin. Nutrients for Lake Pend Oreille and Pend Oreille River, upstream from Albeni FallsDam, were determined in order to identify and quantify nutrient inputs. Nutrient budgets are a factorin the determination of the trophic state of a water body. (Hoelscher)

A large, deep lake such as Lake Pend Oreille, has tremendous absorptive capacity that would likelyallow early signs of eutrophication (high nutrient content, low oxygen content) to go unnoticed inthe pelagic (offshore) waters. Because the littoral (near shore) zone serves as the interface betweenthe surrounding watershed and the main body of the lake, water quality changes in this zone mayprovide an early indication of pollutant input. Observations were made of increased attached benthic(deep) algae production in developed and relatively confined bays and suggested acceleratedeutrophication of Lake Pend Oreille. Lake Pend Oreille may be at a critical nutrient loading level.(Hoelscher)


PhosphorusDuring the water year 1989, 718,707 pounds of phosphorus entered Lake Pend Oreille and PendOreille River upstream from the dam. The Clark Fork River accounted for 69 percent of the totalphosphorus load. When only considering loads to the lake, the Clark Fork River’s contributionincreased to 80 percent. The total phosphorus load leaving the basin through the Pend Oreille Riveris 597,452.7 pounds, resulting in a net retention of 121,254.2 pounds of total phosphorus in LakePend Oreille.

Total phosphorus added to the lake and river during water year 1990 was 899,486.0 pounds, ofwhich 72 percent entered through the Clark Fork River. The Clark Fork River accounted for 83percent of the total phosphorus load to the lake only. As in water year 1989, 121,254.2 pounds oftotal phosphorus remained in Lake Pend Oreille, while 776,660 pounds left the basin through thePend Oreille River.

The distribution of total phosphorus load to Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River isillustrated in Table 1-12. The Clark Fork River was the largest contributor. Reservoirs along thelower river likely settled particulates, to which phosphorus is absorbed, resulting in the lowerpercent contribution compared to flow. Most local sources increased in contribution. Wastewatereffluent had the largest increase. In terms of percentage of contribution, the Pack River contributedthree times more phosphorus than it did flow.

Table 1-12: Phosphorus Loading to Lake Pend Oreille

1989 1990Clark Fork 69.2% 71.8%Lightning Creek 0.9% 0.9%Pack River 6.6% 5.0%Priest River 8.6% 9.4%Sand Creek 0.5% 0.5%Ungauged runoff 4.9% 5.1%Atmospheric 5.8% 4.6%Wastewater 3.4% 2.7%

(Hoelscher)

The deep open waters of the lake are strongly influenced by the Clark Fork River. Small to moderatealterations in the river’s nutrient load will not cause changes in the lake trophic status, however, anincrease of one-quarter the present nutrient load will move the lake closer to a more productive state(Figure 1-1). A perceptible change in water quality will require an increase in the nutrient load.Similar nutrient concentrations in other lakes have resulted in minor aesthetic problems andinfrequent swimming impairment. (Hoelscher)


NitrogenDuring water year 1989, 9,722,385.8 pounds of total nitrogen entered Lake Pend Oreille and PendOreille River. The Clark Fork River was the largest component contributing 81 percent of the totalnitrogen load. Total nitrogen leaving through the Pend Oreille River was 8,245,288.6 pounds,resulting in a net retention of 1,477,097.2 pounds of total nitrogen.

Following the same pattern as observed for total phosphorus, total nitrogen load to the lake and riverwas about one quarter higher in water year 1990 at 12,345,886.7 pounds of total nitrogen. About1,851,883.0 pounds of total nitrogen remained in the lake and river.

Unlike total phosphorus, the overall error associated with the total nitrogen budget was about 50percent. This error was likely the result of large errors in the sample analysis. The large amount oferror in the total nitrogen budget creates uncertainty in the nitrogen retention estimates.

Table 1-13 represents distribution of the annual total nitrogen load to Lake Pend Oreille and PendOreille River upstream of Albeni Falls Dam in Idaho during water years 1989 and 1990. (Hoelscher)

Table 1-13: Nitrogen Loading to Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River


1989 1990Clark Fork 80.9% 81.8%Lightning Creek 1.3% 1.3%Pack River 2.5% 2.2%Priest River 6.0% 6.5%Sand Creek 0.4% 0.4%Ungauged runoff 3.4% 3.5%Atmospheric 4.3% 3.4%Wastewater 1.2% 0.9%

( Hoelscher)

Point Source PollutionThere are many municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers to Lake Pend Oreille and itstributaries. The effluent limitations of the Clark Fork River in Montana is administered by theMontana Department of Health and Environmental Sciences. Municipal stormwater collectionsystems discharge directly to Lake Pend Oreille and river. National Pollutant Discharge EliminationSystem (NPDES) regulations do not require stormwater discharge permits for municipalities orunincorporated areas with less than 100,000 people unless they are designated as a significantcontributor of pollutants.

One fifth of the total phosphorus and less than 10 percent of the total nitrogen to the Clark ForkRiver was contributed by effluent. This is about 97,003.4 pounds of total phosphorus and 632,727pounds of total nitrogen annually. About half of the soluble phosphorus and only one fourth of thesoluble nitrogen loading came from municipal and industrial wastewater dischargers. The effect ofthese discharges on the open lake water quality is minimal and likely confined to localized areas andthe lake outlet, the Pend Oreille River. (Hoelscher)

Non-point Source PollutionMuch of the Lake Pend Oreille watershed is heavily forested. Forests account for 83 percent of thewatershed. Agriculture and grazing are important land uses in the valleys and on lower elevationslopes. Three percent of the timber base was used for grazing. Agriculture accounts for only aboutfour percent of the land use throughout the watershed.

A concern is the conversion of vegetated lands to lands of more intensive use and higher runoff,primarily residential development. Most developable lands are located in the Selle Lowland andother valleys near Sandpoint. These areas are also heavily used for agricultural purposes. Themajority (69 percent) of developable parcels are five acres or less and located near the lake (46percent). The Sandpoint subwatershed accounted for nearly one third of the nearshore developableland and one quarter of the developable lake frontage. The Hope-Ellisport subwatershed contained13 percent of the nearshore developable land.


Based on the location of developable land and the projected growth for the county, futuredevelopment will likely be greatest near Sandpoint and south of the Pend Oreille River. Mostdevelopment will be rural parcels five acres or less and located within one mile of the lake shore.

A frequently used method to quantify the nutrient contribution of non-point sources is to applyannual loading estimates to major land uses. These loadings estimates are called nutrient exportcoefficients. Nutrient export coefficients have wide ranges reflecting differences in hydrology,geology, topography, soils, vegetative cover, variability in runoff, etc.

Table 1-14 represents annual phosphorus loading estimates (kilograms) using nutrient exportcoefficients (kilograms per hectare per year) applicable to the Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho watershedfor the Pack River, Lightning Creek, and Sand Creek subwatersheds.

Table 1-14: Annual Phosphorus Loading

Land Use ExportCoefficient

Pack River LightningCreek

Sand Creek

Forest 0.09 5,879 3,041 921Agriculture 0.20 482 84 578Livestock 0.31 865 94 450Timber-grazed 0.20 365 150 135Residential 0.45 821 186 312Other urban 1.00 363Public parks 0.27 73 34 139Surface water 0.34 69 33 9Estimated load 8917 3622 2544Observed load 21,023 3342 1806Difference -12,106 280 738Percent observed load -58 108 141

(Hoelscher)

Coefficient based loads varied highly from observed or monitored loads. The estimated non-pointsource total phosphorus load to Lake Pend Oreille, excluding the Clark Fork River, was less thanthe observed or monitored load. About 88,846.3 pounds of total phosphorus was estimated tooriginate from non-point sources in Idaho and enter Lake Pend Oreille annually. This was about onethird less than the observed load. The estimated loads for the Lightning Creek and Sand Creeksubwatersheds were higher as land use estimates included all lands in the subwatershed. The PackRiver subwatershed estimated load was much lower than the observed load, indicating morephosphorus exported than predicted.

Most of the Clark Fork River’s nutrient load was attributed to non-point sources. Four fifths of thetotal phosphorus and nearly the entire total nitrogen load came from tributary sources. This


represents about 473,993.9 pounds of total phosphorus and 8,412,839.9 pounds of total nitrogenannually.

The next issue to consider is likely future changes in the basin that generate increased levels ofphosphorus loading to the lake. This would result in lake total phosphorus concentrationscharacteristic of mesotrophic conditions. Under the assumption that the available land is developedto its maximum potential, an additional 7,275.3 pounds of total phosphorus could be discharged toLake Pend Oreille annually as stormwater runoff. This equals eight percent of the total phosphorusload originating in Idaho. Assuming similar development trends in the basin, the total phosphorusload to Lake Pend Oreille will increase about 52,910.9 pounds per year. This is a considerableamount when compared to the loading increase that could produce mesotrophic conditions in 10years. (Hoelscher)

Water TransparencyWater in the northern part of the lake is consistently less transparent than water in the southern part.Secchi disc readings vary widely on a temporal and spatial basis. Secchi disc water transparencydepths averaged about 29.5 feet at southern lake sites and ranged from 12.1 to 52.5 feet. This wasin contrast with an average secchi depth of 18.0 feet for the north part of Lake Pend Oreille.Reported readings were as low as 0.13 in Kootenai Bay. The deeper secchi disc water transparencydepth readings were attributable to the depth of the southern lake basin and the distance from theClark Fork River. Suspended sediment from the river has a long distance to travel and deep waterin which to settle prior to reaching the southern end of the lake. The Clark Fork inflows, as well aswind-induced resuspended sediment from the lake bottom and littoral areas, were the main causesof lower secchi disc water transparency depths in the northern region of the lake. Secchi disc watertransparency depths in the Pend Oreille River averaged 11.5 feet. (Hoelscher)

Water TemperatureMean water temperatures were generally two degrees centigrade warmer in the shallower, northernend of Lake Pend Oreille. The Pend Oreille River was several degrees warmer than the lake.Temperatures ranged from 36.0º F to 72.5º F in the lake and 33.6º F to 71.6º F in the river and upto 79.7º F in the nearshore water. The warmest water temperatures were measured in early to mid-August and the coolest in late January in the river and in March at the deeper lake stations. Watertemperatures during 1990 were warmer than temperatures during 1989. Idaho water qualitystandards state water temperature must be less than 71.6º F with a maximum daily average not toexceed 66.2º F to be protective of cold water biota. Lake surface temperatures exceeded thesecriteria to a depth of less than 33 feet for short periods during the summer. However, this excesswould not affect cold water biota because much deeper water existed within the preferredtemperature range. At times, the entire water column of the Pend Oreille River exceeded thesecriteria and may have restricted its use by cold water biota. (Hoelscher)

Dissolved OxygenThe largest concentrations of dissolved oxygen were associated with the cooler water temperatures;the smallest concentrations with warmer water temperatures. Concentrations ranged from 7.8 mg/Lto 14.0 mg/L and exceeded the minimum criterion of 6.0 mg/L protective of cold water biota.(Hoelscher)


Nutrients• Mean total phosphorus in the warmer, well illuminated zone (euphotic zone) where algae can

grow was 7.6 ìg/L. The range was from 3 to 16 ìg/L.• Mean dissolved orthophosphorus concentration was 2.2 ìg/L. The range was from 1 to 7

ìg/L.• At depths in excess of 328.1 feet, mean total phosphorus concentration was 9.5 ìg/L.• At depths in excess of 328.1 feet, mean dissolved phosphorus concentration was 6.9 ìg/L.• Mean euphotic zone total nitrogen concentration was 137 ìg/L.• Mean dissolved inorganic nitrogen concentration within the euphotic zone was 57 ìg/L.• Nitrogen and phosphorus was lower in concentration in 1990 than 1989.(Hoelscher)

Chlorophyll a• Mean chlorophyll a concentrations varied little within the euphotic zone. Lake wide means

were 0.8 ìg/L in both 1989 and 1990. Concentrations ranged from 0.1 ìg/L to 1.9 ìg/L.• Attached benthic algae growth was reported in nearshore areas.• Enhanced growth of attached benthic algae was associated with urban development and was

one of the early indicators of accelerated lake eutrophication(Hoelscher)

Classification

Trophic State of Lake Pend OreilleTable 1-15 represents criteria values for fixed trophic state classification system of a water body.The concentrations are in micrograms per liter and the measurements are in meters.


Table 1-15: Fixed Trophic State Classification System

Concentrations (:g/L) Secchi discreadings (m)Total Phosphorus Chlorophyll a

Trophic State Mean Mean Maximum Mean MinimumUltra-oligotrophic <4.0 <1.0 <2.5 >12 >6Oligotrophic <10.0 <2.5 <8.0 >6 >3Mesotrophic 10-35 2.5-8 8-25 6-3 3-1.5Eutrophic 35-100 8-25 25-75 3-1.5 1.5-0.7Hypereutrophic >100 >25 >75 <1.5 <0.7

(Hoelscher)

Lake Pend Oreille trophic status was determined on the classification table above. On the basis ofarea weighed lake wide values, Lake Pend Oreille was classified as oligotrophic or ultra-oligotrophicby each variable except minimum secchi disc water transparency depth. This classifies the lake asmesotrophic or eutrophic. Comparison of lake areas indicated the northern part of Lake Pend Oreilleand the Pend Oreille River had mean and minimum secchi disc water transparency depths indicativeof mesotrophic and eutrophic conditions.

In the case of Lake Pend Oreille, the lower secchi disc water transparency depths in the northern partof the lake and river were caused by the inflow of turbid water from the Clark Fork River, not byincreased biological production. Therefore, the mesotrophic and eutrophic classifications for theseareas were irrelevant. Lake Pend Oreille was classed as oligotrophic. Table 1-16 in the Appendix suggests management objectives for Bonner County to reduce nearshoreeutrophication in Lake Pend Oreille by reducing nutrient loading from local sources by the DEQ.

Priest Lake

Size/Depth

Upper Priest Lake covers 1,338 acres with two major tributaries, a 2.7 mile outflow channel calledThe Thoroughfare which flows into Lower Priest Lake, and the lower lake which covers 23,300acres and has numerous tributaries. Lower Priest Lake is the third largest natural lake entirely withinIdaho, and second largest in terms of volume. There is one outlet of the lower lake, at the southwestcorner, and this creates the headwaters of Lower Priest River. River flow is controlled by a damstructure. Lower Priest River flows a distance of 45 miles to its confluence with the Pend OreilleRiver at the city of Priest River.

Priest Lake is known for exceptionally high water quality and its natural aesthetics. Lower PriestLake is relatively deep with a mean depth of 128 feet and a volume of three million acre feet. Lakevolume turnover (hydraulic residence time) calculated to 3.1 years for water year 1995, a water yearthat was near the 50 year average for lake outflow. Total water input to the lake for water year 1995


was estimated at 965,000 acre feet. Inflow from eight major tributaries contributed 81 percent of thetotal, and 38 percent came from a single tributary, The Thoroughfare, a river channel draining theUpper Priest Lake basin. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Priest Lake Management PlanIncreasing human activity on the watershed has led to concern about maintaining the high waterquality of Priest Lake. Priest Lake was nominated to the Idaho Board of Health and Welfare inAugust 1990 for an Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) designation. A series of public hearingsheld around the state demonstrated strong public support for maintaining the current high waterquality of Priest Lake. However, opinion was split on an ORW designation as the proper mechanismto achieve that goal, and concerns were expressed over how the designation might affect non-pointsource dependent industries.

Because the ORW nominator and other strong proponents of lake water quality preservation citeda lake management plan as their primary goal, the Board decided against the ORW designation infavor of legislation requiring the development of a Priest Lake Management Plan.

According to Idaho Code Section 39-105(3)(p): “… the stated goal of the Priest Lake plan shall beto maintain the existing water quality of Priest Lake while continuing existing nonpoint sourceactivities in the watershed.” The Priest Lake Planning Team, composed of 12 members, used thislanguage as a guideline in formulating the plan. The lake plan will be used to implementmanagement strategies in the watershed to minimize human impact on water quality.

Action items from the Priest Lake Management Plan that specifically relate to Bonner County’sauthority to regulate land use and construction are as follows:

Public and Private Residential Roads Action Items§ The project manager shall identify problems on all existing roads and driveways (USFS,

State, County, private). Inventory site specific problems potentially affecting water qualityof Priest Lake.

§ The project manager shall request landowners and managers to correct existing problemswhich contribute to water quality degradation of Priest Lake.

§ The project manager shall encourage compliance with best management practices (BMPs),and provide counsel for control and management of stormwater runoff on existing public andprivate roads and driveways.

§ The project manager shall provide public information and education programs on roadconstruction and maintenance BMPs.

§ Establish a road stormwater and erosion control demonstration project provided funding anda suitable site can be secured.

Stormwater and Construction Development Action Items


§ For existing residential and business development, encourage the maintenance, restoration,or enhancement of native vegetative buffers along the lake front and streams. A desiredvegetative buffer strip would be a minimum of 40 feet wide. For future residential andbusiness development, the project manager shall assist the county in ensuring that thesetback and vegetative buffer strip requirements of Title 12, Bonner County Revised Code(land use code) are adhered to.

§ Develop and seek incorporation into Bonner County Ordinances (by project manager, lakeplan steering committee, and/or lake association) for the Priest Lake watershed, thefollowing: § Create a bond requirement for the stormwater plan “Design Professional.” This would

make the individual designing the stormwater management plan accountable for theimplementation and completion of the project and financially responsible for damages.This accountability and financial responsibility is only applied when a plan is poorlydeveloped, rather than if it is not carried out as planned. If a plan is not carried outproperly, then the owner/contractor shall be responsible for damages.

§ Provide an easily understood (and consistent) checklist that guides contractors andowners through the building and BMP process.

§ Require that a designated individual, who is responsible for the construction and/ordevelopment (i.e. owner, contractor), be accountable for implementation of the BMPs.Agency inspections and actions required for chronic violators in excess of those listedin the standard procedure (see example) shall be billed to the responsible individualaccording to actual cost. For repeat violations (three strikes), require a $10,000 bond foreach project.

§ Empowerment of the Bonner County building inspector to field-investigate reports ofBMP violations within 48 hours of notification. After a field review, the inspector mayissue cease and desist orders at his or her discretion. The order shall not be lifted untilremediation is completed to expedite repair.

§ Provide a BMP handbook to all contractors, permittees, and developers. Recommendthat these handbooks be funded through the permitting process. Publicly educatepermittees about companies that conduct stormwater audits.

§ Require, as part of the permit approval process, that permittees complete a relativelysimple questionnaire of random topics to ensure that the BMP handbook has beenreviewed.

§ Strengthen the definition of stormwater. The current definition does not specificallyinclude lakes and reads as follows: “That portion of precipitation that does not naturallypercolate into the ground or evaporate, but flows via overland flow into channels orpipes into a defined watercourse, stream or constructed conveyance, detention orretention facility.” A more direct definition such as “Stormwater is any water runoff thatis associated with storm events” is preferred.

§ The county will encourage long-term planning of stormwater and sewage facilities. § Eliminate the permit exemption for Class M structures that require excavation, within

100 feet of surface water. This would minimize adverse impacts of small structures thatcould potentially cause water resource problems. (“Class M” outbuildings are no longerexempt from permit requirements.)


§ Amend the stormwater ordinance to specifically apply to construction of private roadsand driveways.

§ Erosion control measures (natural or artificial shall be in place PRIOR to site excavationor construction.

§ Eliminate the loophole in the current stormwater ordinance that allows self-inspectionof stormwater management plans. It is recommended that the inspection of theeffectiveness of the stormwater management plan can ONLY be conducted by anemployee of the Bonner County Building Department. (At the time of adoption of thiscomponent, the Building Department was not in existence. Stormwater inspections areadministered by the Planning Department.)

§ Eliminate the loophole in the stormwater ordinance that exempts utility installation fromcomplying with the ordinance.

Standard Example for Stormwater Ordinance§ Permittee goes to Bonner County Building Department (BCBD) for a permit

application, handbook of BMPs (and BMP questionnaire), and process checklist.§ Permittee returns to BCBD with completed application, BMP questionnaire, and

Stormwater Management Plan. § A Bonner County inspector visits the site to check for potential problems.§ If problems are discovered, the plans must be adjusted. § If no problems are discovered, move to Step 4. § Permittee may begin construction. § A Bonner County inspector will review BMPs with each site review, or as called

upon by reports of BMP violations. County costs of these site reviews are fundedthrough the permitting fee.

§ The project manager shall work closely with the Bonner County Building Department toensure the implementation of the Priest Lake Management Plan.

§ Provide a public information and education program which: a) includes a “Master’sGardeners” type program including appropriate native vegetation; b) includes ahomeowners’ kit with information about landscaping and its importance in maintainingwater quality; and c) encourages public agencies and private individuals to incorporatestormwater controls in their projects (i.e., vegetative swales, dissipating water for naturalinfiltration).

§ Promote contractor licensing and BMP training in Bonner County. Ensure a certain level ofexpertise in developing a stormwater management plan and certify/license the installers (twoday class).

§ Identify areas with a high erosion risk on plat maps of new subdivisions to informbuyers/builders of true potential costs of site development. The Priest Lake Project, orcounty, Geographical Information System (GIS) would serve as the basis for these maps.

§ Establish a stormwater/erosion control demonstration project provided funding and a suitablesite can be secured.


Hazardous Materials (HM), Underground Storage Tanks (USTs), and Above Ground StorageTanks (ASTs) Action Items

§ The project manager shall assist Bonner County by identifying Aquifer Sensitive Areas andLake Sensitive Areas, and in the development of comprehensive plan goals, objectives andordinances relating to planning and development.

§ Require secondary containment of all new USTs, ASTs, and piping within 1,000 feet of thelake. Leak detection systems for USTs will be required.

§ Containment, or treatment of stormwater or other runoff/spills from retail motor vehiclepump stations, and fueling areas shall be required within a two-mile perimeter of PriestLake. Any existing retail motor vehicle pump islands or fueling areas shall have three yearsfrom the date of enactment of this management plan to comply with this action. All newconstruction shall comply at the time of construction.

§ Road dust abatement materials shall be applied only according to current DEQ and countyguidelines covering approved materials and methods of application.

Table 1-17 shows the physical and hydrological characteristics of Upper and Lower Priest Lakes.

Table 1-17: Physical and Hydrological Characteristics of Upper and Lower Priest Lakes

Characteristic MeasurementUpper Priest Lake

Elevation at shoreline 2438 feetLength 3.29 milesMaximum width 1 mileShoreline length 8 milesLake surface area 1338 acresLake volume 0.024 mile3

Maximum depth 112 feetMean depth 60 feetHydraulic residence time, water year 1994 0.30 yearHydraulic residence time, water year 1995 0.26 yearWatershed/lake area ratio 80:1

Lower Priest LakeElevation at shoreline 2438 feetLength 18.7 milesMaximum width 4.5 milesShoreline length 72 milesLake surface area 23,309 acresLake volume 0.88 mile3

Characteristic Measurement


Maximum depth 369 feetMean depth 128 feetHydraulic residence time, water year 1994 4.1 yearHydraulic residence time, water year 1995 3.1 yearWatershed/lake area ratio 15:1


The Priest Lake Basin has abundant, high quality tributaries. Surface hydrology of the basin isdivided into three geographical areas: the Upper Priest Lake system, east side of Lower Priest Lake,and west side of Lower Priest Lake. The basin is further divided into categories of subwatersheds.Lakeshore residential and business developments reside within these perimeter watersheds.(Rothrock and Mosier)

Upper Priest Lake

This watershed complex drains into the upper lake and into the Thoroughfare, with a total drainagearea of 204 square miles. There are two large tributaries to the lake, Upper Priest River and HughesFork, which join about one mile from the northwest corner of the lake. Two other major streams arein this subarea: Trapper Creek, draining to the northeast corner of the upper lake, and CaribouCreek, draining to The Thoroughfare about one mile upstream from its mouth. (Rothrock andMosier) East Side Lower Lake

This subbasin begins near the mouth of The Thoroughfare and extends to the southern end of thelake at the town of Coolin, and to the mouth of Chase Creek. The Thoroughfare, draining the upperlake, is by far the single highest flow volume tributary to the lower lake. Major streams draining theSelkirk range into the east side of the lake are Lion Creek, Two Mouth Creek, Indian Creek, HuntCreek, and Soldier Creek. All these streams except Soldier Creek are relatively confined and of highgradient up to the last mile or so from the mouths.

Seven minor flow streams are interspersed between the major tributaries. From Squaw Creek southto Fenton Creek, headwaters are at lower elevations, about half way up the Selkirk range. ChaseCreek is outflow from Chase Lake. While this is a moderately sized subwatershed, Chase Creek flowvolume into Priest Lake is low. This is a flat watershed, with primarily ground water resources, doesappear to be hydraulically linked to the lake. (Rothrock and Mosier)

West Side Lower Lake

This subbasin extends from Beaver Creek, discharging just south of The Thoroughfare, to thesouthern end of the lake at the mouth of Chase Creek. The subbasin has only one major stream,Granite Creek, and one moderate flow stream, Kalispell Creek. The remaining tributaries are of lowvolume. The Granite Creek subwatershed is the single largest in the basin. Headwaters of the south


and north forks are at lower elevations than east side streams, mostly between 4,000 and 5,000 feet.Overall, the average gradient of Granite Creek is low. There are many flat gradient sections withassociated wetlands.

The subwatersheds of Reeder Creek, Kalispell Creek, and Reynolds Creek have large areas of flatgradient in the middle and lower elevations. These are areas of meadows, wetlands, and conversionto hay cropping and cattle grazing. The ground water systems are extensive in these watersheds, andmany branch streams go subterranean prior to discharging into the primary tributary channels.

The southwestern most tributary watershed, Lamb Creek (15,605 acres), is not included in the basinacreage. This stream discharges into Lower Priest River just upstream from the outlet dam, and isconsidered the initial tributary to the river. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Basin TotalsTotal land surface area of the basin equals 353,590 acres (552 square miles). To this total is addedthe surface area of Upper Priest Lake, The Thoroughfare, Lower Priest Lake (24,720 acres), andPriest Lake Islands (600 acres), for a grand total of 378,910 acres (592 square miles).

The annual combined volume of gauged streams flowing into Lower Priest Lake (including TheThoroughfare) represents around 85 percent of total calculated water input. The Thoroughfare is thesingle major source of volume at around 40 percent of the total. Annual water volume for the UpperPriest River from the confluence of Hughes Fork and Ruby Creek accounts for 47 percent of thetotal modeled inflow to the upper lake. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Quality

Nutrient BudgetTable 1-18 in the Appendix represents relative ranking of water quality characteristics for Upper andLower Priest Lake tributaries based on spring runoff, high flow data. Spring high flow isapproximately mid-March through June.

In general, concentrations of nutrients, sediment, and mineral content are low to moderate for allstreams flowing into Upper and Lower Priest Lakes. Streams have been grouped and ranked (lowto highest) on a relative basis for the Priest Lake Basin based on their content of phosphorus,nitrogen, suspended sediment, and minerals.

Upper Priest River at the mouth (combined Upper River and Hughes Fork) stands apart from allstreams with the highest relative mineral content as represented by electrical conductivity (EC).Upper Priest River also has the highest concentrations of total inorganic nitrogen (TIN). Thecharacteristics of highest EC and TIN for this major tributary can be traced through Upper PriestLake, down The Thoroughfare, and then into the northern most portion of Lower Priest Lake.Suspended sediment concentration (TSS) at Upper Priest River mouth also has a relative high rankduring peak runoff.

The Thoroughfare stands alone, not only as the highest volume tributary to Lower Priest Lake, butalso because it is mostly drainage from a lake environment. Upper Priest Lake is a settling basin for


incoming suspended sediment, and there is assimilation of dissolved inorganic phosphorus andnitrogen from lake algal communities. The Thoroughfare ranks low in TP and TSS, but maintainsa relative rank of high for TIN during spring runoff.

Trapper Creek and Indian Creek are extremely low in conductivity and total phosphorus, nitrogen,and TSS. Caribou and Lion Creek exhibit moderate to high relative TIN.

Horton Creek down to Soldier Creek are separated from the upper east side group by havingmoderate relative phosphorus levels and slightly higher conductivity.

Phosphorus, nitrogen, mineral content, and suspended sediment are low in tributaries from BeaverCreek draining into Distillery Bay.

From Granite Creek south to Lamb Creek, mineral content is ranked moderate, phosphorus ismoderate, TSS moderate during high flow, and low in TIN.

Reeder, Kalispell and Lamb Creek rank high in phosphorus, which is associated with high springrunoff TSS. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Water TransparencyLower Priest Lake is known for its exceptional water clarity. This is borne out by the three-yearseasonal average of around 10 meters secchi disk transparency. From late July through October theaverage is 11.7 meters with a maximum recorded Secchi disk of 14 meters. Clarity in spring candramatically decline. This decline in clarity is due to a spring diatom peak, fine suspended, andcolloidal material brought in by tributaries and snowmelt runoff from perimeter watersheds into thelake. Also during the spring, atmospheric pine pollen is falling and a three to six foot rise in lakelevel resuspends material along the lake perimeter which had been dry for five months during lowwinter pool. Secchi disc readings in May and June can reach minimums around 5 meters.

Upper Priest Lake water clarity, on the average, is less than the lower lake. The three-1year seasonmean was 7.2 meters, and the spring mean was 5.5 meters with a minimum of 3 meters. Secchi diskreadings in June and July remained between 4 meters and 7 meters during the diatom peaks. Latesummer and fall the secchi disk readings were as high as 13 meters. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Water TemperatureSometimes during the winter months the entirety of Lower Priest Lake forms an ice cover. Upperwater temperatures in mid-lake on the Lower Priest Lake are around 41º F in April to 55 to 61º Fby mid-June. Temperatures in bays are generally warmer. During the month of August the maximumsurface temperature is 72º F. The Upper Priest Lake freezes over each winter. Ice cover remainsthrough March and breaks up in April. Spring upper water temperatures are cooler than in the lowerlake, on the average of about 2.7º F less. Water temperatures in June ranged from 50 to 55º F.(Rothrock and Mosier)

Dissolved OxygenThe minimum criterion needed of dissolved oxygen is 6.0 mg/L for the protection of cold waterbiota. Dissolved oxygen levels in bottom waters during summer stratification was 9 to 10 mg/L. The


good dissolved oxygen level in bottom waters during the summer is another factor in indicatingoligotrophic conditions for the lake. There was also a dominance of very small centric diatoms inthe phytoplankton assemblage with only a minor occurrence of late summer blue-green algae(cyanobacteria). Ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus indicate phosphorus as the most likely limitingnutrient to phytoplankton growth. (Rothrock and Mosier)

NutrientsLower Priest Lake’s total phosphorus concentrations are typically low and fairly uniform from earlyspring through October and with depth. The three-year seasonal average was 4 ìg/L TP. The seasonaltrend of TP had a very slight trend of higher values in spring compared to mid-summer. Upper PriestLake’s three year seasonal average was 6 ìg/L TP.

Lower Priest Lake nitrogen levels are very low. Concentrations of total inorganic nitrogen (TIN)within the euphotic zone averaged 24 ìg/L from spring to fall. Seasonally, TIN is highest in springaveraging 31 ìg/L and reaching 40 to 60 ìg/L. Spring high TIN comes from tributary flow, winterand spring precipitation, and recharge from bottom waters with higher TIN following fall turnover.Upper Priest Lake TIN is at least twice that of the lower lake. The mean from April through Octoberover three years was 56 ìg/L and spring average was 84 ìg/L. These levels reflect the high relativeTIN rank of Upper Priest River among watershed streams. Seasonal and depth patterns of TIN aresimilar to that described for the lower lake. By October the near bottom samples can exceed 190ìg/L.

The total organic nitrogen (TON) average concentration in Lower Priest Lake was 54 ìg/L. Themaximum recorded value was 360 ìg/L. Upper Priest Lake TON averaged about the same as thelower lake. The study period average for Lower Priest Lake was 78 ìg/L, and for Upper Priest Lake115 ìg/L. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Chlorophyll aLower Priest Lake chlorophyll a concentrations are low, with a study period season average of 1.5ìg/L. Concentrations are fairly uniform throughout the lake. Spring peak chlorophyll a levels in thelower lake begin in either April or May and extend into June. The highest day lake wide average was2.8 ìg/L and the maximum concentration recorded was 3.8 ìg/L at Kalispell Bay.

Upper Priest Lake chlorophyll a concentrations are somewhat higher than those of the lower lake.The three-year season average was 2.0 ìg/L. The spring peak occurred later than in the lower lake,beginning in May or June and extending to mid-July. Spring peak chlorophyll a averaged 2.7 ì/L andmaximum recorded euphotic zone concentration was 4.1 ì/L. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Classification

Table 1-19 in the Appendix represents criteria values for the fixed trophic state classification systemof a water body. The concentrations are in micrograms per liter and the measurements are in meters.

Table 1-20 in the Appendix represents the trophic state of Upper and Lower Priest Lakes. The valuesare based on seasonal means, March through October, 1993 to 1995. Lower Priest Lake means areweighted lake wide averages from five reference stations. (Rothrock and Mosier).


Other indicators of a high-quality trophic state for both lakes include total nitrogen where seasonalaverages of less than 250 ìg/L falls within an ultra-oligotrophic classification. The phytoplanktoncommunity structure is also indicative of oligotrophic waters. In Lower Priest Lake summerdissolved oxygen levels in deep waters are high showing minimal organic biomass available forbacterial decomposition. In Upper Priest Lake dissolved oxygen near the bottom was just less than5 mg/L. This in part may reflect the greater algal biomass sedimenting to the bottom.

Lower Priest Lake waters are soft and low in mineral content, and are calcium bicarbonate in type.Upper Priest Lake has a higher mineral content as influenced by Upper Priest River. October waterswere higher in mineral content than spring waters. Silica content in both lakes is important withregard to the dominance of diatoms in the phytoplankton community. (Rothrock and Mosier)

ConclusionsConclusions developed from the three year water quality study on the Priest Lake conclude:• Open waters of Upper and Lower Priest Lakes can be classified as oligotrophic.• Lake waters of shallow nearshore sampling sites showed no indication of nutrient

enrichment linked to on-shore human development.• Both lakes do exhibit a marked decline in water clarity during tributary spring runoff.• Phytoplankton growth in Priest Lake may be co-limited by phosphorus and nitrogen at least

during summer months.• Attached algae growth of many Priest Lake shoreline areas appears excessive given the low

nutrient content of ambient nearshore waters.• The primary nutrient fueling sources relating to attached algae biomass were not determined.• Phosphorus, nitrogen, and sediment loading from various sources into Priest Lake was

determined as low to moderate, except that loading per area of runoff from some residentialareas can be high.

• Some isolated areas of ground water sampling indicate an altering of background waterquality by sewage effluent plumes.

• Project consultants consider human induced nutrients and sediments as a potential threat fordeterioration of Priest Lake water quality.


Cocolalla Lake

Size/DepthCocolalla Lake is a medium-sized north Idaho lake of 805 surface acres with a mean depth of 28 feetand a volume around 22,000 acre feet. The lake is located in Bonner County about 10 miles southof the city of Sandpoint. There are five inflow tributary streams: Cocolalla, Fish, Butler, Westmond,and Johnson Creeks, draining a watershed area of about 64 square miles. There is a single surfaceoutlet stream, Cocolalla Creek that drains to the Pend Oreille River via Round Lake. The ratio ofwatershed area to lake surface area is large, 50:1. (Rothrock)

The earliest water surveys of the lake watershed were done in the mid-1970s by Idaho Division ofEnvironmental Quality. The trophic status (biological productivity) was considered to be betweenmeso-eutrophic and eutrophic. Dense blue-green algae blooms in 1978 and 1983 resulted in public


notices warning against use of the water for drinking and primary contact because of potentialtoxicity. In comparison to other regional lakes, Cocolalla Lake is ranked as one of the moreeutrophic, based on water quality monitoring data. The lake is listed as a Special Resource Waterunder the Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements. Because of thewater quality issues, the Bonner Soil Conservation District made the lake a priority area andreceived funding to develop a resource inventory and watershed management plan in late 1994.(Bonner Soil Conservation District)

The lake is steep sided on its long axis, east and west shores, and shallow in the south and northends. The lake is relatively shallow with a mean depth of 28 feet and the watershed area is largerelative to the lake surface area and volume. Table 1-21 represents physical and hydrologicalcharacteristics for Cocolalla Lake. The volume and maximum and mean depth were determined fromFebruary 1991 lake conditions as surveyed by DEQ. The flushing rate was calculated from October1990 through September 1991. (Rothrock)

Table 1-21: Physical Characteristics for Cocolalla Lake

Elevation at shoreline 667 m 2,220 ftMaximum length 3.8 km 2.4 miMaximum width 1.2 km 0.7 miShoreline length 9.4 km 5.9 miLake surface area 326 ha 805 acLake volume 27.5 x 10 6 m3 22,188 ac-ftMaximum depth 12.6 m 41.4 ftMean depth 8.4 m 27.7 ftWatershed area 165.8 km3 64 sq. miFlushing rate 0.5 year -1

Watershed/lake area ratio 50:1(Rothrock)

On the east side of the lake, two miles of Highway 95 and the Burlington Northern Railroad tracksrun parallel to the shore. The shoreline is steep up to the railroad tracks and is mostly rip-rappedwith some trails leading to the lake. There is no residential development on the east shoreline.

On the north, northwest, and west sides of the lake the terrain is flat to slightly sloped with publicaccesses, swimming beaches, camps, and residential homes. A private resort on the west side,Johnson’s Sandy Beach Resort, had been in operation, but it was closed in 1998. There are 135parcels of land immediately around the lake. Only 71 of these parcels have homes and areconsidered lakeshore properties. These are concentrated around the north to west side of the lake.Many of the homes are used only on weekends and during the summer.


The terrain on the southwest shore is more steeply sloped and the existing homes are offset from thebeaches. The south side of the lake is flat marshy land and pastureland, with only two lakeshorehomesites. (Rothrock)

There are three systems available for sewage disposal for lakeshore properties. These include: 1)individual septic systems, with a mean age of 14 years and several within 50 feet of the shoreline;2) a northwest neighborhood system that terminates in a community drainfield which is greater than300 feet from the lake; and 3) a private community sewer system with a large community drainfielddesigned to serve 40 equivalent residence hook-ups .(Bonner County Conditional Use Permit 519-94; DEQ, Rothrock)

Hydrologic BudgetTable 1-22 represents an account of monthly average discharge and flow volume for each of thestream sampling sites.

Table 1-22: Summary of Stream Flow in Cocolalla Lake

Station MeanDischarge (cfs)

MaximumDischarge

(cfs)

Total FlowVolume (acre-

feet)

Percent ofTotalInflow

Butler Creek 3.8 73 2,715 8%Cocolalla Creek (lowercreek)

24.0 159 17,398 52%

Cocolalla Creek (uppercreek)

17.2 110 12,418 --

Fish Creek (lower) 9.2 150 6,683 20%Fish Creek (upper) 8.5 131 6,160 --Johnson Creek 3.1 56 2,232 7%Westmond Creek 6.2 40 4,495 13%

Total inflow volume -- 33,523 --Lake Outlet 58.2 377

(Rothrock)

Lower Cocolalla Creek at the lower end had the highest percentage of total tributary inflow. Thehighest flow months of February through April had monthly volumes around 3,400 acre feet. LowerFish Creek at the lower end ranked second in flow. Fish Creek had a yearly volume about one thirdthat of Lower Cocolalla Creek. The peak flow months were February and April at 1,500 acre feeteach month, and March at 1,000 acre feet. Combining yearly inflow volume at the southern end ofthe lake with Cocolalla Creek, Fish Creek, and Butler Creek, accounted for 80 percent of theestimated total tributary inflow. The highest discharge peak was in early April with dischargeapproaching 380 cfs. Monthly volume was at its greatest in April, at 11,000 acre feet.


Cocolalla Creek subwatershed is the largest drainage area and the creek contributes the highestproportion of inflow and phosphorus loading to the lake. The creek is perennial with the flowregimen dominated by snowmelt runoff. It is approximately 15.5 stream miles long from theheadwaters to the mouth with many small intermittent tributaries throughout its length. The creekflows into the south end of Cocolalla Lake.

The west side of the watershed is drained by Fish Creek, the second largest subwatershed. Exceptfor the lowermost portion of the subwatershed, the terrain is mountainous with some upper slopesas steep as 50 percent. Fish Creek has a north fork and a south fork. There has been considerablesilvicultural activity over the years, particularly in the north subwatershed. In most years the forksof Fish Creek are perennial, dominated by snowmelt runoff.

Butler Creek subwatershed drains a small portion of the mountainous east side. The creek isintermittent and dries up by mid-summer. Butler Creek is 4.5 stream miles in length and flows intoCocolalla Creek just downstream where it crosses under Highway 95 near the lake.

Westmond Creek drains the northeast section of the watershed. Westmond Creek is 4.3 stream mileslong and enters the northern end of Cocolalla Lake. The lower part of Westmond Creek maintainslow flow in summer and fall months. Of the five inflow streams, Westmond Creek had the highestaverage concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacteria.

Johnson Creek drains the northwest section of the watershed. The three forks of Johnson Creek areeach about 2 stream miles to Sandy Beach Resort where they combine and enter at the mid-west partof the lake. Johnson Creek is intermittent and dry by mid-summer. (Rothrock)

The estimated annual water budget for Cocolalla Lake is represented in the Table 1-23.

Table 1-23: Water Budget Annual Summary

Acre - Feet PercentInflowTributaries 33,523 77%Precipitation 2,225 5%Groundwater + surface wateraround lake perimeter

7,927 18%

Total 49,675 100%OutflowTributary 41,127 94%Evaporation 2,175 5%Groundwater seepage 301 1%Total 43,603 100%

(Rothrock)


Quality

Nutrient BudgetThe five tributaries contribute 63 percent of the estimated total annual phosphorus load to the lake.Cocolalla Creek has the greatest inflow volume, and ranked first in phosphorus loading, contributing25 percent of the total load. The flow weighted mean TP concentration in tributaries was moderateat 0.034 mg/L. Stream TP and suspended concentrations were elevated during rain on snow events.(Rothrock)

Table 1-24: Cocolalla Lake Phosphorus, October 1990 to September 1991

Source Kg/yr PercentTributariesCocolalla Creek 552 25%Fish Creek 283 13%Westmond Creek 273 12%Butler Creek 155 7%Johnson Creek 124 5%Subtotal 1,387 63%

Surface overflow into lake 107 5%Groundwater estimate 50 2%Septic systems 54 2%Atmosphere (precipitation and dryfall) 111 5%Internal load (anoxic and oxic sediment release,macrophyte decay)

500 23%

Total lake load 2,209 100%(Rothrock)

Nitrogen (Streams)Total nitrogen (TN) loading calculations for water year 1990 to 1991 are only presented fortributaries. Concentration ratios suggest phosphorus as the limiting nutrient for algal growth.Nitrogen did not exhibit peak values in the storm event samples, and TN concentrations weregenerally at their lowest in February through April. Annual total nitrogen load stations combinedwas 16.5 tons. Cocolalla Creek had the highest proportion of tributary TN loading at 65 percent.Westmond Creek contributed the next highest of tributary TN loading at 16 percent. (Rothrock)

Total Suspended Sediment (Streams)The combined total load of suspended sediment was 572 tons. Cocolalla Creek site had the highestproportion of the total at 28 percent followed by Fish Creek at 24 percent. The TSS load (68 percentof the total) is upstream of the southern flatland approach to the lake. During normal precipitation


years there is overflowing of Cocolalla Creek onto a floodplain, and at Fish Creek where the streamhas filled in there is mass sheet flooding across pasture. An unknown portion of the suspendedsediment will become deposited in the lower pasture. An unknown portion of the suspendedsediment is deposited in the lower channels and on the floodplain prior to entering the lake.(Rothrock)

Water Transparency (Lake)In 1992, secchi disk values ranged from 3 to 4 meters from early May to early September. Secchidisk transparency measurements mainly ranged from 1.7 to 2.0 meters from October 1990 to earlyAugust 1991. In mid-August water clarity improved to 2.2 meters, and the highest transparency wasrecorded in mid-September at 3.5 meters. After the fall turnover in mid-October 1991, transparencyagain dropped below 2 meters. (Rothrock)

Water Temperatures (Streams)Summer temperature measurements on upper Cocolalla Creek are 52 to 54º F, while downstreamthe water warmed to 55 to 57º C. The highest summer temperature for Fish Creek was 55º F. Belowthe pasture flooding, Fish Creek temperature reached 66º F. At the outlet creek of Cocolalla, withthe lake as its source water, August temperatures average 72º F. (Rothrock)

Dissolved Oxygen (Streams)Dissolved oxygen maintained sufficient levels for salmonid fisheries in summer months withperhaps the exception of the outlet creek. The lowest summer oxygen level recorded at CocolallaCreek was in early August at 7.6 mg/L DO and 75 percent oxygen saturation. The low reading atthe Fish Creek stations was 9.7 mg/L DO. Below the pasture flooding on Fish Creek there was areading of 6.4 mg/L. At the outlet creek in early August oxygen had dropped to 4.6 mg/L DO and58 percent saturation. (Rothrock)

Chlorophyll a (Lake)The highest recorded concentrations of chlorophyll a for the study year were after the fall turnoverin 1990, with 23.0 :g/L in November. From April through June 1991 chlorophyll a ranged from 5to 10 :g/L. In early July chlorophyll a in the open waters was 18.0 :g/L, the highest recordedsummer value. Chlorophyll values did decrease from late July through September dropping below10 :g/L. (Rothrock)

Classification

Trophic State of Cocolalla LakeEutrophication is a process or change in a water body’s biological productivity based on theavailability of nutrients (trophic condition), a change in an infertile condition toward a eutrophic orfertile condition. From the day a lake is created, naturally or man-made, it begins to fill in withsediments and nutrients. The whole process happens naturally, but man can significantly acceleratethe process by adding nutrients and other substances to the lake water—a process referred to ascultural eutrophication (Bonner Soil Conservation District). The water quality problem of CocolallaLake is accelerated eutrophication due to non-point source phosphorus contributions and internalphosphorus loading.


Table 1-25: Trophic State of Cocolalla Lake

TotalPhosphorus

(:g/L)Chlorophyll a (:g/L) Secchi disk readings (m)

Mean TS Mean TS Maximum TS Mean TS Minimum TS20 M 12.9 E 32.7 E 2.1 E 1.6 M

TS = trophic state; M = mesotrophic; E = eutrophic (Rothrock)

Mean annual total phosphorus fell within the mesotrophic range, but mean and maximumchlorophyll a, and mean secchi transparency of the lake clearly fall within the eutrophic range.

Conclusion

The following results indicate a eutrophic status for Cocolalla Lake:• Lake conditions in 1992 were improved over 1991, and also earlier years where some

documentation is available. The primary environmental difference between the two studyyears was a much lower inflow volume and nutrient loading from tributaries in 1992.

• Beneficial uses of Cocolalla Lake which may be threatened or impaired are:–Cold Water Biota–The extensive volume of anoxic waters places a tremendous stress onthe salmonid fisheries.–Primary Contact Recreation–The presence of blue-green algae blooms, if extensiveenough, can make water contact quite unpleasant.–Domestic Water Supply–The presence of blue-green algae can cause taste and odorproblems for potable water supplies.–Aesthetics–Low water clarity and blooms of blue algae are perceived by residents in thewatershed to be characteristics that lessen the aesthetic value of Cocolalla Lake.

• Most macrophyte growth is in the southern shallow end of the lake, and coverage is notextensive. There is a large shallow area in the northern part of the lake that is mostly devoidof macrophyte growth, apparently limited by a sand rock inorganic substrate type. Futuredevelopment of aquatic plants would impact swimming and boating activity.

• Phosphorus appears to be the limiting nutrient for algal productivity in the lake.• The five tributaries combined accounted for 77 percent of the lake’s annual inflow volume

in 1991 (33,520 acre feet), and 63 percent of total TP budget (1.5 tons).• Cocolalla Creek provided 40 percent of the total lake inflow and is the single highest

phosphorus importer to the lake (25 percent of the total TP budget).• Fish Creek has become degraded in the lower flatland approach to Cocolalla Lake due to

sediment collection. There is an overall phosphorus increase in the lower flatlands.• Westmond Creek had the highest mean concentrations of phosphorus, nitrogen, and bacteria,

and contributed 12 percent of the total TP load. Headwaters from Westmond Creek beginat a ponded wetland with a phosphorus concentration higher than any other headwaters.Summer fecal coliform counts in Westmond Creek near the lake pose a health risk to


children playing in the creek and potentially to lake swimmers along the northern publicaccesses, although lake bacterial samples did not show harmful counts.

• Butler Creek contributed seven percent of the total TP load. • Johnson Creek contributed five percent of the total TP load.• Eighteen percent of the water budget was calculated as a combination of surface overflow

directly into the lake and ground water seepage from shallow percolation and the deeperSouthside Aquifer, a subset of the Pend Oreille River Aquifer. TP load was nine percent.

• Atmospheric sources (precipitation and dryfall) were assigned five percent of the TP load.• Groundwater phosphorus input from lakeshore septic tank leachate was estimated at two to

three percent of the total TP budget.• Internal phosphorus loading from mainly anoxic sediments, but also aerobic sediments and

macrophyte decay, contributed 23 percent of the total TP load.(Rothrock)


Table 1-26: Management Objectives for Cocolalla Lake

Suggested by Idaho Department of Environmental Quality:

Management Alternatives Lead Agency Implementation Remarks and Costs Funding Source(s)Construction activities best management practices.(Objective realized May 28, 1993; Bonner CountyOrdinance 227 and production of bestmanagement practices guide, produced in 1996)

Bonner County,IDEQ

$20,000. Likely a low estimate. Implement throughtraining programs, demonstration projects, an I&E effort,and successful implementation of the Bonner Countystormwater ordinance

SAWQP

A land development ordinance and a stormwatermanagement ordinance nonstructural alternatives.(Objective realized May 28, 1993; Bonner CountyOrdinance 227 and production of bestmanagement practices guide, produced in 1996)

Bonner County,SCD, CLA, IDEQ,SCS

$100,000. This estimate was an initial expenditure toimplement ordinances. Estimate is low when consideringlong term cost to Bonner County to regulate ordinance.Bonner County enacted a stormwater ordinance in 1993.But the ordinance needs to be strengthened (throughamendment) to include residential road construction andother earth disturbance activities prior to obtainingbuilding permits (lot and subdivision clearance). Therealso is a need for public education about the ordinance.

Mostly privatefinanced by homeand businessowners. Explorepossibility offorming a LID.

Road/sediment control best management practices.(Objective realized May 28, 1993; Bonner CountyOrdinance 227 and production of bestmanagement practices guide, produced in 1996)

Bonner County,DEQ

$102,500. Program costs include additional training ofgovernmental agencies and private firms involved in roadconstruction and maintenance, and for the additional costsof labor and materials to implement BMPs that minimizeerosion impact on waterways. It is also believed that roadconstruction activities needs to be incorporated into theBonner County stormwater ordinance.

Bonner County,CLA 319 grant,IDEQ 314 grant

AbbreviationsCLA Cocolalla Lake AssociationCounty Bonner CountyDEQ Idaho Department of Environmental QualityIDL Idaho Department of LandsPHD Panhandle Health DistrictSCD Bonner County Soil Conservation DistrictSCS United States Soil ConservationSSOC-LWC Stream Segment of Concern - Local Working CommitteeUSFS U.S. Forest Service


Funding Sources

Clean Water Act Section 314 Phase 2 (Clean Lakes Program) - PotentialClean Water Act Section 319 (Non-point Source Program) - Current and PotentialIdaho State Agricultural Water Quality Program (SAWQP) - Current

(Rothrock)


Kelso Lake

GeneralKelso Lake is located in Bonner County, Idaho, and has 54 acres of surface and 1.9 miles ofshoreline with a maximum water depth of 36 feet (11 meters). The lake has extensive weed growthand limited residential development.

Kelso Lake is early eutrophic with a secchi depth reading of 3.5 meters. The water frontage andwatershed of Kelso Lake is heavily forested. The lake is brown stained. On August 14, 1991, noalgal bloom was present. The lake soils are highly organic and emit gas from the anaerobic bottommuds. Most of the lake bottom is silt and detritus. (Mossier)

Quality

Beneficial UsesAccording to the Idaho Water Quality Standards, the designated beneficial uses of Kelso Lake are:domestic water supply, agricultural water supply, cold water biota, salmonid spawning, primarycontact recreation, and secondary contact recreation. Threatened beneficial uses of Kelso Lakeinclude domestic water supply and cold water biota. (Mossier)

Sources of Pollution and Nutrients, and Recommended Management ActionsGranite Lake is Kelso Lake’s primary water source. Both are a slightly brown-stained color. Thereis very little limnological data and background information for Kelso Lake. It is posted as a“nonmotorized boat lake.” Residential development is located on the north and southeast side of theshoreline. It is likely, that phosphorus and other nutrients may be originating from septic tanks ofresidential homes or resorts. Management action recommended for Kelso Lake includes theinspection of sewage drain fields from residential homes and resorts. (Mossier)

Classification

Trophic Status of Kelso LakeThe extensive development of water shield and yellow water lily communities and the absence ofwhite water lily in the silt-ridden bay areas, further illustrate the eutrophic nature of Kelso Lake.Eleocharis and Isoetes were not found in shallow, sandy littoral areas, indicating that the lake iseutrophic. Coontail, water milfoil, and largeleaf pondweed are the leading dominant species withinmost of the submergent plant communities, also indicating that Kelso Lake has been going througha change in water quality and becoming more eutrophic.

The water chemistry indicates that Kelso Lake is mesoeutrophic from moderate to moderately highlevels of ammonia, nitrate, nitrite, total kjehldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and orthophosphate, andchlorophyll a. (Mossier)


Secchi depth:

1991 LWQA range 3.3 to 3.5 meters 1990 LWQA range 3.0 to 5.0 range

Average 4.2 meters Average 3.5 meters

Water clarity in Kelso Lake was limited due to brown-stained water and organic matter.

Chlorophyll a:1991 LWQA range 5.8 to 6.4 :g/LAverage 6.1 :g/L

Phytoplankton production in Kelso Lake is moderate due to the brown-stained water and reducedlight. The lake is early eutrophic.

Total Phosphorus:1990 range 0.015 to 0.15 mg/LAverage 0.04 mg/L

(Mossier)

Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature ProfilesOn August 14, 1991, the dissolved oxygen in Kelso Lake plummeted from 8.0 mg/L at the surfaceto 0.3 mg/L at 11 meters near the lake bottom. Adequate dissolved oxygen in the summer is foundonly at four meters and above. The entire hypolimnion (layer at the bottom of the lake) is severelydepleted of dissolved oxygen, a condition that indicates severe lake eutrophication and heavynutrient loading in Kelso Lake. Total ammonia levels were consistently higher near the lake bottomthan at the surface, indicating anaerobic bacterial decomposition is occurring and depleting thedissolved oxygen in the lake. (Mossier)

Round Lake

GeneralRound Lake is located in Bonner County, Idaho, and has 46 acres of surface water and 1.2 miles ofshoreline. The maximum water depth is 34 feet (10.4 meters). The shoreline of Round Lake isundeveloped except for the public swimming beach of Round Lake State Park. (Mossier)

Quality

Round Lake is eutrophic and receives its primary water source from Cocolalla Lake via CocolallaCreek. The primary contribution of phosphorus and other nutrients to the watershed originate fromseptic tanks of residential homes, runoff from roads, logging, livestock grazing, and farming in theCocolalla Lake watershed. All of these activities have significantly contributed to the deteriorationof water quality and eutrophication in Round Lake.


The lakeshore and watershed of Round Lake is heavily forested and undeveloped. Most of the lakebottom is silt and detritus. There are shore areas that have a sandy bottom such as the Round LakeState Park swimming beach area. Despite the rich organic bottom muds, there was no odor in thewater sample taken near the lake bottom. A fine grain algal bloom was prevalent throughout the lakein August 1991. (Mossier)

Beneficial UsesIdaho Water Quality Standards do not designate beneficial uses for Round Lake. The Idaho DEQrecognizes the following existing beneficial uses to Round Lake: cold water biota, warm water biota,primary contact recreation, and secondary contact recreation. Cold water biota and primary contactrecreation are threatened.

Round Lake State Park is located on the north side of the lake. A public boat access, camping, andpicnic areas are located at the park. No residential homes and commercial resorts are on the lake.Fishing, swimming, hiking, and sun bathing are all recreational opportunities. Wildlife and fisherieshabitat are important. (Mossier)

Sources of Pollution and Nutrients, and Recommended Management ActivitiesLimited limnological data and background information exists for Round Lake. The only lakeshoredevelopment is an Idaho State Park Campground, beach and public boat access at the north shore.This facility is well managed and maintained and presents little pollution threat to the lake at thistime. Gas powered motors are not allowed on the lake. The primary water source for Round Lakeis Cocolalla Lake, another eutrophic lake. Any important management plan for maintaining orreducing phosphorus levels in Round Lake will be closely dependent on a comprehensive, watershednutrient management plan for Cocolalla Lake. (Mossier)

Classification

Trophic Status of Round LakeWaterweed and Robbin’s pondweed were the two leading dominant submergent macrophyte foundin organic bays and silt ridden littoral areas. These species are abundant. The relative abundance ofthese two species indicated that the lake is eutrophic. Robbin’s pondweed is quite shade tolerant andtends to grow profusely in lakes of high phosphorus and nutrient content and low water clarity.While Robbin’s pondweed and waterweed were dominant, the maximum depth at which they grewwas 2 meters.

The extensive development of water shield and yellow water lily communities, and the absence ofwhite water lily further illustrated the eutrophication nature of Round Lake. Needlerush andquillwort were not found in shallow, sandy, littoral areas. These two species are most oftenassociated with oligotrophic lakes.

The water chemistry indicates that Round Lake is eutrophic from high levels of ammonia, nitrateand nitrite, and total kjehldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and orthophosphate, and chlorophyll a.(Mossier)

Secchi depth:


1991 LWQA range 3.0 to 3.0 meters 1990 LWQA range 2.1 to 2.8 meters


Water clarity in Round Lake is limited due to brown-stained water and algal blooms.


Phytoplankton production in Round Lake is extremely high. The lake is eutrophic.


(Mossier)

Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature ProfilesOn August 6, 1991, the dissolved oxygen in Round Lake plummeted from 9.1 mg/L at the surfaceto 0.2 mg/L at 10 meters near the lake bottom. Dissolved oxygen depletion occurred in the lowerportion of the lake extending to 10 meters. Sufficient dissolved oxygen for fish in the summer wasfound only at four meters and above. The dissolved oxygen increased slightly in the thermocline,and reached near anaerobic conditions at 6 meters and throughout the remainder of the hypolimnion,a condition that indicated severe lake eutrophication and heavy nutrient loading in Round Lake.(Mossier)

Granite Lake

General Granite Lake is located in Bonner County, Idaho, and has 20 acres of surface water and 0.9 milesof shoreline with a maximum water depth of 79 feet (24 meters). Granite Lake has variablewatershed topography, no residential shoreline development and brown-stained water. (Mossier)

Quality

Granite Lake appears to be an anomaly in the spectrum of lake types found in north Idaho. Mostlikely, Granite Lake never fully mixes and remains thermally stratified in the summer. Preliminarydata indicated that it is a meromictic (segmented) lake of relatively high total dissolved solids. Thedissolved oxygen is rapidly depleted from 7.1 mg/L at the surface to 0.6 mg/L at 5 meters. Thedissolved oxygen continued to be less that 1 mg/L from the 5 meters depth to the lake bottom. Thebrown-stained water contributed to the absorption of light and may have accounted for the extremelynarrow epilimnion/thermocline and the extremely cold water found at five meters during summer


thermal stratification. Secchi depth readings of four meters were primarily a result of brown-stainedwater, since algae blooms were not evident during the sample period.

The thick, grey-black, cold lake-bottom sediment was many feet deep. This was a major factor inthe recycling of high phosphorus, iron, and manganese minerals throughout the lake. Undoubtedly,the meromictic nature of Granite Lake has been maintained by these large, thick reserves of bottommuds laden with nutrients and minerals. (Mossier)

Beneficial UsesThe Idaho Water Quality Standards do not address beneficial uses for Granite Lake. Existingbeneficial uses of Granite Lake are: cold water biota, warm water biota, and secondary contactrecreation. The limited data base for Granite Lake prevents designation of additional beneficial uses.

Based on the eutrophic nature of Granite Lake, the cold water biota use is impaired. The majorityof the water column in Granite Lake is anaerobic in late August. Also, total hypolimnetic ammoniaconcentrations (4.8 mg/L) exceeded the DEQ Water Quality Standard of 2.2 mg/L. The narrowlittoral zone in Granite Lake, along with low dissolved oxygen at the bottom (0.3 mg/L) threatensthe warm water biota. It is unlikely that a cold water fishery would be productive in this lake.Largemouth bass and other warm water fisheries may do well in these stained waters. Fishing islimited due to extremely low dissolved oxygen levels in most of the lake. One undeveloped boataccess is available at the northwest end of the lake. Poor aesthetic and visual quality is apparent.There are limited camping opportunities with no facilities. (Mossier)

Sources of Pollution and Nutrients, and Recommended Management ActionsGranite Lake is an additional eutrophic, meromictic lake with coffee-stained water. Very high ironand manganese levels, along with high tannins and lignins, most likely account for the coffee-colored water. There are no known sources of nutrients from the watershed. Very little additionallimnological data or background information exists for Granite Lake. No management action isrecommended at this time. (Mossier)

Classification

Trophic Status of Granite LakeGranite Lake is classified as eutrophic. The submergent plant community was dominated by largeleaf floating pondweed, coontail, and water milfoil. The floating leaf community was dominated bywater shield and yellow water lily. These dominant submergent macrophytes were typicallyindicative of late mesotrophic/eutrophic lake trophic conditions.

The water chemistry indicates that Granite Lake is eutrophic as indicated by the high levels ofammonia, nitrate, kjehldahl nitrogen, total phosphorus and orthophosphate, and chlorophyll a.(Mossier)

Secchi depth:


1991 LWQArange

4.0 to 4.0 meters 1990 LWQA range 3.6 to 5.5 range




(Mossier)

Dissolved Oxygen/Temperature ProfilesBoth dissolved oxygen and water temperature dropped very rapidly between two and five meterswater depth. The extreme changes in dissolved oxygen from the surface to five meters indicatedexcessive nutrient loading and oxygen consumption. There was virtually no oxygen in the lake from5 meters to the lake bottom. The high organic mineral rich lake bottom sediment has contributedsignificantly to oxygen depletion in Granite Lake. (Mossier)

Shepherd, Mirror, and Hoodoo Lakes

In-depth studies regarding the quality of these lakes are not currently available.

Section 1.3 - Wetlands

The Pend Oreille Basin area has a significant number of wetlands because of the lakes and rivers.The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers has detailed wetlands maps that provide more exact and preciselocation and description of the numerous wetlands that exist in Bonner County. These maps wereprepared in 1987 by the National Wetlands Inventory, under the direction of the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. The information provided in this report gives datafrom a variety of studies within the Pend Oreille Basin area.

Location

Submerged plant beds are generally found in quiet, protected backwater areas where the bottom ispredominantly silt and organic matter. They occur in water depths ranging from an elevation of 2050feet down to 2030 feet, about 12 to 32 feet below maximum pool level. Submerged aquatic plantbeds cover roughly 8,000 acres in Lake Pend Oreille. Typically, these submerged aquaticcommunities are dominated by rooted vascular plants such Elodea, milfoils, and pondweeds. Anumber of aquatic plant communities have been identified around the lake, predominantly west ofSandpoint, Denton Slough, Cocolalla Slough, Pack River delta, and areas within the Clark Forkdelta.


The drawdown and fluctuation zone occurs around the edges of lakes and reservoirs: the upper limitof the drawdown zone is the mean annual high water line; and the lower limit is the mean annual lowwater line. There are approximately 4,000 acres of drawdown zone within the Pend Oreille Basin.(Bonneville Power Administration)

Emergent WetlandsThe freshwater deep marsh is a habitat type dominated by emergent, non-woody, vascular plants,the substrate of which is intermittently exposed to the atmosphere. Characteristic plants includebulrush and spatterdock. The deep marsh wetland type is the least common of those encountered inthe Pend Oreille Basin. Approximately 15 acres of this cover type are located in the Clark Fork andPack River deltas, around Morton Slough, and along the Pend Oreille River downstream to AlbeniFalls. This wetland type is important for general habitat quality, as it is rich in plant speciesdiversity, has high biomass productivity, and is crucial for wetland dependent wildlife species,including waterfowl, song birds, and small mammals.

A freshwater shallow marsh is a semi-permanently flooded habitat type with vegetation dominatedby emergent, non woody, vascular plants. Presently, 1,139 acres of shallow marsh wetland typeoccur extensively in the Clark Fork and Pack River deltas, around Morton Slough, and along thePend Oreille River downstream to Albeni Falls. This wetland type is important for general habitatquality, as it is rich in plant species diversity, has high biomass productivity, and is crucial forwetland dependent wildlife species, including waterfowl, song birds, and small mammals.

The fresh wet meadow is a habitat type with vegetation dominated by non woody vascular plants,the substrate of which is saturated or seasonally flooded. Vegetation is dominated by various forbsand grasses. Wet meadows are found as transitional areas in the river deltas, along the shores ofMorton and Denton sloughs, the Pend Oreille River downstream to Albeni Falls and other areas withgently sloping shorelines. There are approximately 1,340 acres surrounding the shorelines of thebasin.

Peatland encompasses all wetland cover types occurring on peat soils. Peatland occurs in wetlandareas when accumulation of organic matter exceeds the decomposition rate. Peatlands in thePanhandle region of Idaho and adjacent Washington are separated by nearly 622 miles from thelargely unbroken peatlands of the northern latitudes of North America. Peatlands are subdivided intobogs or fens. Bogs receive water and mineral nutrients only from rain water, and fens receivenutrients from water that has percolated through mineral soil and bedrock, or from a surface sourcesuch as a creek. Almost all of the Idaho Panhandle habitats are fens.

There are 3,240 acres of fen peatland within the basin, encompassing emergent, scrub-shrub, andforested wetland cover types. No peatlands are directly associated with Lake Pend Oreille. Marsh-like, sphagnum-rich fens occur on floating mats at Gamlin Lake, Beaver Lake (south), ShepherdLake, Hoodoo Lake, and Kelso Lake. Floating mats contain the most ecologically stablecommunities within peatland habitats because they adjust with fluctuating water levels by as much2.5 feet annually, hence maintaining constant contact with water while never becoming inundatedlike fixed mats.


Six existing wetland communities, currently occupying approximately 8,000 acres, have beenidentified and mapped by the Corps of Engineers in and around Lake Pend Oreille. Over 4,000 acresof the existing wetlands occur in the Clark Fork delta and about 1,400 acres in the Pack River delta.(Bonneville Power Administration)

Priest Lake• Hughes Fork has a moderate gradient and includes a large wetland area, Hughes Meadow.• The lower end of Soldier Creek has a flat gradient with a large associated wetland.• Granite Creek has many flat gradient sections with associated wetlands.• Reeder Creek, Kalispell Creek, and Reynolds Creek have large areas of flat gradient in the

middle and lower elevations. These are areas of meadows, wetlands, and conversion to haycropping and cattle grazing.

• Upper Priest River from the mouth of Upper Priest Lake has a significantly large wetlandencompassing the area.

• The southern end of Priest Lake at the mouth of Chase Creek, there are large wetland areas.• Lamb Creek and South Fork Lamb Creek show wetland activity.(Rothrock and Mosier)

Cocolalla LakeThe surrounding flatland west of lower Fish Creek is a combination of grazing land and wetland.Headwaters from Westmond Creek begin at a ponded wetland. (Rothrock)

Section 1.4 - Geothermal Waters

According to Bill Young from the USGS office in Boise, Idaho, there are no hot springs or thermalwater wells in Bonner County.


CHAPTER 2 - VEGETATION

Section 2.1 - Forests

Forest Composition

A variety of tree species grow in Bonner County. On the lower flats and benches in the southwesterncorner, Douglas fir, and ponderosa pine predominate along with large acreages of lodgepole pine(USDA NRCS). Conifer forests in the Pend Oreille Key Watershed consist of mixed stands, typifiedby the stands of western red cedar/western hemlock; stands of co-dominant Douglas-fir andponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa); and stands of Douglas-fir, western larch (Larix occidentalis),lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta), and western white pine (Pinus monticola). Dense stands of Douglasfir, larch, and lodgepole are characteristic of slopes with north and east aspects. Relatively openstands of Douglas fir and ponderosa pine are typical on the warmer, drier slopes with south and westaspects. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

In the Priest Lake Basin area, western white pine, grand fir, western hemlock, Douglas fir, andwestern larch are the main species, with the Douglas fir and ponderosa pine growing on the driersouth and west facing slopes. Western red cedar grows on the wetter sites, both on the lower slopesand the bottomland soils. Patches of old-growth cedar have survived forest fires. This mixed speciesforest generally is located at elevations of as much as 5,000 feet. Above 5,000 feet Englemannspruce and subalpine fir become the predominant tree species (USDA NRCS). Brush fields blanketold burn areas, and rangelands comprise the remainder of the basin’s vegetative cover (Idaho WaterResources Board, 1995).

In the eastern part of the county, where annual precipitation exceeds 35 inches, annual growth ratesfor western white pine and grand fir are the highest. The benches on both sides of the Clark ForkRiver are excellent growing sites for mixed species forest. (USDA NRCS)

Ownership

Approximately 70 percent of Bonner County is forestland, a majority of which is composed of theKaniksu National Forest and the Priest Lake State Forest. Private holdings and a small percentageof land owned by the U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, make up theremainder of Bonner County Forest Land (see Table 2-1).


Table 2-1: Land Ownership Bonner County, Idaho

Entity Acres Percent of CountyPublic (Municipal & County) 8,638 1%Federal 493,832 44%State 169,106 15%Private 440,488 40%Total 1,112,064 100%

(County Profiles)

History

Lumber and logging industries in Bonner County were first established in 1866 with the constructionof the first lumber mill at Cabinet Landing on the Clark Fork River, below Cabinet Gorge. The firstlarge band mill was constructed at Sandpoint by the Humbird Lumber Company in 1900, with JohnA. Humbird and Frederick Weyerhaeuser, Lake States Lumbermen, as owners (USDA, 1937).During the last quarter of the 19th century, several small mills were operated in the area to providetimber, shingles, and railroad ties for the construction of new towns, mining operation, and twotranscontinental railroads. Between 1904 and 1906, at least nine mills were operating in the area(USDA NRCS). The output of timber in 1905 was more than 117 million board feet (see Table 2-2).

Table 2-2: Timber Output 1905 to 1930

Year Number ofMills

Combined Annual Capacity -Million Board Feet Lumber Tally

1905 4 1171910 9 2381915 7 2211920 7 2411925 5 1851930 4 126

(USDA, 1937)

Logging began along Lake Pend Oreille and the Clark Fork and the Pend Oreille Rivers. Logs wererafted and towed to the mills by steamboat. Thirty-four steamboats were operating on Lake PendOreille in 1906. As the timber was cut, logging camps were moved up the major tributary streams.The Clark Fork, Priest and Pack Rivers and Sand Creek were used to convey logs to Lake PendOreille and the Pend Oreille River. Logs cut on the flats extending from Athol to Naples were hauledto mills on standard gauge railroads. Steamboats and logging railroads have been replaced bylogging trucks.


The Humbird Lumber Company, from first production in 1901 until its close in the 1930s, playedan important part in the lumber industry. Its three mills, located at Sandpoint, Kootenai, and AlbeniFalls, produced more than half of the lumber output of the county and supported a correspondinglyhigh percentage of the wage earners in the lumber industry. (USDA, 1937)

Productivity

Idaho’s primary forest products industry is vital to the state’s economy. In 1995, timber processingfacilities operated in 29 of Idaho’s 44 counties and timber was harvested in 35 counties. Majorindustry concentrations are located in Idaho’s 10 northern counties. Twenty-one plants, producinga variety of wood products, were operating in Bonner County in 1995, with subsequent mill closuresoccurring in the late 1990s. (University of Montana)

Table 2-3: Bonner County Timber Processing Plants

Product Timber ProcessingPlants

Lumber 12Plywood veneer & OSB 1Posts and poles 3House logs 4Utility poles 1Total 21

(University of Montana)

According to Kathryn Tacke, Idaho Department of Employment, five wood product plants haveclosed since 1994. These plants were the Louisiana Pacific I-Beam plant and sawmill at Priest River,Idaho Woodworks at Sandpoint, and the Crown Pacific plants at Oldtown and Colburn. This resultedin approximately 550 jobs lost. Today there are 18 saw and planing mills operating in BonnerCounty.

Counties north of the Salmon River supplied 80 percent of the 1995 timber harvest. ClearwaterCounty continued to lead the state in timber harvest with about 17 percent of Idaho’s harvest.Shoshone County had 14 percent; Idaho County had 8 percent, and Bonner County had 10 percentof the harvest in 1995. Bonner County’s average share of the harvests from 1979 to 1995 was 13percent of North Idaho’s harvests and 10 percent of the harvests for the entire state. (University ofMontana)

Figure 2-1: Timber Products Harvested from Bonner County


Section 2.2 - Pasture, Range and Crop Land

Since 1992, Bonner County has seen a reduction in agricultural production lands whilesimultaneously enjoying an increase in market value of agricultural products sold. In 1997, theaverage size of farms was approximately 197 acres, a decrease of 37% from 1992. While farmlanddecreased 34% from 1997 to 1992, the market value of agricultural products sold increased 21% to$7,269,000 in 1967.

About 80,000 acres (17 percent) of Bonner County is used for hay, pasture, and crop production.Most of this acreage is dry-farmed. A small amount of acreage, mainly droughty soils, is undersprinkler irrigation. Grass-legume hay, wheat, oats, and barley are the major crops. Yields are onlylow to moderate compared with those in nearby counties because of the cool temperatures and ashort growing season. (USDA NRCS; DEQ)

Most cropland in the area is cutover timberland. A small percentage is wet bottomlands andmeadows. Most of the farms are part-time enterprises that are supplemented by off-farmemployment or by income from the timber industry. Christmas tree production is proving quiteprofitable where proper management is used. (USDA NRCS) Christmas tree growers saw profitableyears in 2001 and 2002, as supplies come into line with demand. Ornamental nursery stockcontinues to increase in value, with Bonner and Boundary counties being the prime wholesaleproduction areas for Idaho’s thriving ornamental industry. Statewide, nursery stock is the sixthleading crop. Other high value crops in Boner County include specialty vegetables and herbs. Alarge percentage of herb and edible crop producers emphasize organic production practices. BonnerCounty also markets a vareity of huckleberry products (Barney).


Table 2-4: Bonner County Farm Production

1997 1992 1987 1982Number of farms 501 476 516 559Land in farms (acres) 98,662 150,021 136,833 154,398Average size of farm 197 315 265 276Pastureland, all types (farms) 353 383 411 483Pastureland, all types (acres) 61,687 87,268 72,473 89,932Average size of farms in pastureland(acres)

215 228 176 186

Farms by size: 10 to 49 acres 180 118 121 133Farms by size: 50 to 179 acres 144 157 190 205Farms by size: 180 to 499 acres 96 122 125 140Farms by size: 500 to 999 acres 26 27 33 36Farms by size: 1000 acres or more 18 18 21 24Cattle and calves inventory (farms) 235 274 290 391Beef cows (farms) 203 226 226 295Milk cows (farms) 23 30 43 105Hogs and pigs inventory (farms) 20 35 29 50Sheep and lambs inventory (farms) 37 35 29 51Chickens >=3 months old inventory (f) 36 53 77 125Cattle and calves inventory (number) 9,210 13,828 14,129 19,019Beef cows (number) 4,828 6475 6170 6987Milk cows (number) 343 566 681 1,440Hogs and pigs inventory (number) 131 255 194 903Sheep and lambs inventory (number) 1,117 1,177 1,008 1,380Cattle and calves inventory sold(number)

5,049 6,597 6,667 10,837

Hogs and pigs inventory sold (number) 131 554 1,747 1,213Broilers… chickens sold (number) N/A N/A N/A 894Total cropland (farms) 439 414 446 504Total cropland (acres) 36,975 42,641 46,034 45,253Irrigated land (farms) 86 81 85 83Irrigated land (acres) 1,962 2,617 494 4,996Harvested cropland (farms) 354 331 383 416Harvested cropland (acres) 20,232 21,358 25,735 28,206Wheat for grain (farms) 4 2 11 13

1997 1992 1987 1982


Wheat for grain (acres) D D 635 2,415Wheat for grain (bushels) D D 35,837 139,497Barley for grain (farms) 4 7 8 13Barley for grain (acres) D 210 456 931Barley for grain (bushels) D 10,974 19,060 50,772Irish potatoes (farms) 3 2 8 11Irish potatoes (acres) D D 319 284Irish potatoes (cwt) D D 60,265 43,366Hay – all (farms) 283 285 356 393

D = Data unavailable at this level.(U.S. Census of Agriculture; County Summary Highlights: 1997)

Section 2.3 - Generalized Vegetation

Representable species of upland shrubs include western serviceberry mountain maple, snowberry,mountain balm, mallow ninebark, huckleberry, etc. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical AdvisoryTeam). Understory and open field shrubs and forbs include: thimbleberry, huckleberry, Ceanothus,pachistma, devils club, ocean spray, and serviceberry (Rothrock and Mosier).

Along stream riparian areas are birch, aspen, cottonwood, alder, and willow. Numerous wetlandswith associated vegetation are present in the county (Rothrock and Mosier).

Section 2.4 - Sensitive Species

No threatened or endangered plants, as listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (1973), areknown to occur in the county (Idaho Conservation Data Center). The USFWS Snake River BasinField Office, Boise, has further designated a Species of Concern category based on the criteria givenbelow. It should be noted that the following criteria are subject to change.

Species of Concern (SC). Available information supports tracking the status and threats to speciesbecause of one or more of the following factors:

• Negative population trends have been documented.• Habitat is declining or threats to the habitat are known.• Subpopulations or closely related taxa have been documented to be declining.• Habitats for life phases outside of Idaho (i.e., migratory habitat) are known to be threatened.• Competition or genetic implications from introduction/stocking of exotic species.• Identified as a species of concern by agencies or professional societies. • In combination with any of the other criteria, information is needed on status or threats to

the species.


The Idaho Native Plant Society (INPS), a statewide non-profit organization, assigns rare plants toone of three groups: • Globally Rare - Taxa rare throughout their range.• State Rare - Taxa rare within the political boundaries of Idaho but more common elsewhere.• Review - Global and State rare taxa which may be of conservation concern in Idaho but for

which insufficient data exists upon which to base a recommendation regarding appropriateclassification.

Globally Rare Species • GP1 = Global Priority 1. Taxa with a GRANK of G1 or T1.• GP2 = Global Priority 1. Taxa with a GRANK of G2 or T2.• GP3 = Global Priority 3. Taxa with a GRANK of G3 or T3• GX = Taxa thought to be globally extinct (i.e., GRANK = GX).

State Rare Species• 1 = STATE PRIORITY 1. Taxa in danger of becoming extinct or extirpated from Idaho in

the foreseeable future if identifiable factors contributing to their decline continue to operate;these are taxa whose populations are present only at critically low levels or whose habitatshave been degraded or depleted to a significant degree.

• 2 = STATE PRIORITY 2. Taxa likely to be classified as Priority 1 within the foreseeablefuture in Idaho, if factors contributing to their population decline or habitat degradation orloss continue.

• S = SENSITIVE. Taxa with small populations or localized distributions within Idaho thatpresently do not meet the criteria for classification as Priority 1 or 2, but whose populationsand habitats might be jeopardized without active management or removal of threats.

• M = MONITOR. Taxa that are common within a limited range as well as those taxa whichare uncommon but have no identifiable threats.

Review Species• R = Review. Global and State rare taxa which may be of conservation concern in Idaho but

for which insufficient data exists upon which to base a recommendation regardingappropriate classification.

Table 2-5 in the Appendix lists special status plant species known to occur in Bonner County alongwith its Federal or State classification.


CHAPTER 3 - SOILS

This chapter is a brief description of the general characteristics of the soils found in Bonner County,Idaho. The subject matter is a summary of the detailed information that can be found in the U.S.Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as theSoil Conservation Service, Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area, Idaho, 1982. Please refer to theNRCS survey for detailed descriptions of the 64 soil map units. The NRCS survey does not includeall portions of Bonner County.

Section 3.1- Prime farmland

Prime farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture, is the land that is bestsuited to producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops. It must either be used for producingfood or fiber or be available for these uses. It has the soils quality, length of growing season, andmoisture supply needed to economically produce a sustained high yield of crops when it is managedproperly. Prime farmland produces the highest yield with minimal energy and economic resources,and farming it results in the least disturbance of the environment. A map showing the location of theprime farmland in Bonner County titled, Prime Agricultural Land, Bonner County, Idaho, is foundat the end of the Natural Resources element.

Prime farmland commonly has an adequate and dependable supply of moisture from precipitationor irrigation. It also has favorable temperature and length of growing season and an acceptable levelof acidity or alkalinity. It has few if any rock fragments and is permeable to water and air. Primefarmland is not excessively eroded or saturated with water for long periods and is not flooded duringthe growing season. The slope is no more than six percent.

About 65,565 acres, or nearly six percent, of the soil survey area meets the soil requirements forprime farmland. This acreage is scattered throughout Bonner County, but most of it is in thesouthwestern and north-central portions of the county. About one-third of this prime farmland isused for crops and pasture. The balance is woodland. The main crops grown on this land are springwheat, oats, barley, and grass-legume hay.

A trend in land use in some parts of Bonner County has been the loss of some prime farmland tourban uses. The loss of prime farmland to other uses puts pressure on marginal lands, whichgenerally are more erodible or poorly drained, are difficult to cultivate, and are generally lessproductive. Residential development can also interfere with agricultural practices because newresidents may object to operations such as mowing, cultivation, harvest and application of fertilizersand herbicides. Also, the development of the 5- and 10-acre “ranchettes” have contributed toBonner County’s problems with noxious weeds because of a lack of vegetation management.Unmanaged roadside corridors serve as distribution corridors for introduced, exotic weeds thatthreaten economically important native species and increase production costs for farmers (Barney).

Land capability classification shows, in a general way, the suitability of soils or most kinds of fieldcrops. The soils are grouped according to their limitations for field crops, the risk of damage if theyare used for crops, and the way they respond to management. The grouping does not take intoaccount major and generally expensive land forming that would change slope, depth, or other


characteristics of the soils, nor does it consider possible but unlikely major reclamation projects.Capability classes, the broadest groups are designate by Roman numerals I through VIII. Thenumerals indicate progressively greater limitation and narrower choices for practical use. Theclasses are defined as follows:• Class I soils have slight limitations that restrict their use.• Class II soils have moderate limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require

moderate conservation practices.• Class III soils have severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require special

conservation practices, or both.• Class IV soils have very severe limitations that reduce the choice of plants or that require

very careful management, or both.• Class V soils are not likely to erode but have other limitations, impractical to remove, that

limit their use.• Class VI soils have severe limitations that make them generally unsuitable for cultivation.• Class VII soils have very severe limitation that make them unsuitable for cultivation.• Class VIII soils and miscellaneous areas have limitation that nearly preclude their use for

commercial crop production.

Capability subclasses are soil groups within one class. They are designated by adding a small letter,e, w, s, or c, to the class numeral, for example, IIe. The letter “e” shows that the main limitation isrisk of erosion unless close growing vegetation is maintained; “w” shows that water in or on the soilinterferes with plant growth or cultivation (in some soils the wetness can be partly corrected byartificial drainage); “s” shows that the soil is limited mainly because it is shallow, droughty, orstony; and “c,” used in only some parts of the United States, shows that the chief limitation isclimate that is very cold or very dry.

The following map units (Table 3-1) meet the requirement for prime farmland when irrigated andwhere the slope is less than 6 percent. This list does not constitute a recommendation for a particularland use. (USDA NRCS)


Table 3-1: Prime Farmland Map Units

SoilUnit Description Characteristics Limitations Acres Percent

2 Bonner gravellysilt loam

Cropland IIIs Irrigated, IVsnon-irrigated—Well suited toirrigated crops but ismarginally suited to non-irrigated crops.

Woodland 2o—Grand fir,Douglas fir, ponderosa pine,western larch and lodgepolepine are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—low availablewater capacity and cool soiltemperatures.

Woodland—high content ofvolcanic ash andsusceptibility of the soil tocompaction.

31,563 2.84

9 Colburn veryfine sandy loam

Cropland IIIw—This unit issuited to cultivated crops.Deep-rooted crops are suitedto areas where the naturaldrainage is adequate or wherea drainage system has beeninstalled.

Woodland 1w—Western RedCedar, western white pine,grand fir, and Douglas fir arethe main woodland specieson this unit.

Woodland—seasonal wetnessand susceptibility of the soilto compaction.

9,331 0.84

20 Kaniksu sandyloam

Cropland IIIs irrigated, Ivsnon-irrigated—This unit iswell suited to irrigated crops.

Woodland 2s—Douglas fir,ponderosa pine, westernlarch, and lodgepole pine.

Cropland—Poorly suited tonon-irrigated crops.

Woodland—This unit hasfew limitations for harvestingtimber.

11,009 0.99

23 Kootenaigravelly siltloam

Cropland IIIs irrigated, Ivsnon-irrigated—Well suited toirrigated crops.

Woodland 3f—Douglas fir,ponderosa pine, lodgepolepine, and western larch.

Cropland—Poorly suited tonon-irrigated crops.

Woodland—Few limitations.

7,650 0.69

43 Rathdrum siltloam

Cropland IIIc—Suited tosmall grain.

Woodland 1o—Western redcedar, western white pine,Grand fir, and Douglas fir.Also to limited extent areponderosa pine, western larchand lodgepole pine.

Cropland—Cool soiltemperatures.

Woodland—Susceptibility ofthe soil to compaction.

903 0.08

SoilUnit Description Characteristics Limitations Acres Percent


45 Rathdrum-Bonner siltloams

Cropland IIIs irrigated, IVsnon-irrigated—This unit iswell suited to irrigated andnon-irrigated small grain.

Woodland 1o—Western redcedar, western white pine,grand fir, and Douglas fir onthe Rathdrum soil. Grand fir,Douglas fir, ponderosa pine,western larch and lodgepolepine on the Bonner Soil.

Cropland—Cool soiltemperatures.

Woodland—Susceptibility ofthe soils to compaction.

4,172 0.38

48 Selle fine sandyloam

Cropland IIIs—Suited toirrigated and non-irrigatedcrops.

Woodland 1o—Western redcedar, western white pine,grand fir, and Douglas fir.

Cropland—Cool soiltemperatures, somewhatdroughty conditions.

Woodland—Few limitationfor harvesting of timber.

5,043 0.45

(USDA NRCS)

Section 3.2 - Non-Prime Farmland

Of the 26 Bonner County soil units identified as suitable for agriculture by the Natural ResourcesConservation Service, 19 soil units are classified as “non-prime” farmland. These soils, while not“prime,” are still suited for crop production and pasture. These soil map units are identified in Table3-2.

In addition, of the 64 Bonner County soil units identified by the NRCS soil survey, 56 are suitablefor the production of commercial trees. Portions of Soil Units 5 and 14 are used for woodlandproduction; however, the steepness of slope in some areas where these units are found preventscommercial woodland production. Slow permeability and long periods of flooding associated withSoil Units 15, 34, 41, 42, and 64 prevent commercial tree production in these soils. Soil Unit 46contains very little soil (five percent) to support the growth of commercial trees. (USDA NCRS)

Mission silt loam, while designated a non-prime soil for crop production, can be highly productivewith proper management for small fruits, vegetables, and ornamental nursery stock.

Table 3-2: Non-prime Farmland Map Units


SoilUnit Description Characteristics Limitations

4 Bonner silt loam,cool, 0 to 4 percentslopes.

Cropland IVs—Poorly suited tocultivated crops.

Woodland 1o—Western hemlock,western red cedar, grand fir, andwestern white pine are the mainspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Cool soil temperatures anda short growing season.

Woodland—Susceptibility to soilcompaction.

6 Cabinet silt loam, 2to 12 percent slopes.

Cropland IVe—Marginally suited tosmall grain.

Woodland 1w—Western red cedar,grand fir, western hemlock andwestern white pine are the mainspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Cool soil temperatures,wetness in spring, and hazard of watererosion.

Woodland—Susceptibility to soilcompaction and seasonal wetness.

8 Capehorn silt loam, 0to 2 percent slopes.

Cropland IVw— Poorly suited tocultivated crops.

Woodland 1w—Western red cedarand western hemlock are the mainspecies on this unit.

Cropland— Cool soil temperaturesand a short growing season.

Woodland—Susceptibility to soilcompaction and seasonal wetness.

10 Dufort silt loam, 5 to45 percent slopes.

Cropland Vie—Poorly suited tocultivated crops.

Woodland—Ir—Grand fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, and lodgepolepine are the main woodland species onthis unit.

Cropland—Cool soil temperatures, ashort growing season, slope and thehazard of water erosion.

Woodland—Slope, the hazard ofwater erosion, and susceptibility ofsoil to compaction.

12 Elmira loamy sand, 0to 8 percent slopes.

Cropland IVs—Suited to irrigatedcrops but is poorly suited tononirrigated crops.

Woodland 1s—Ponderosa pine andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Droughtiness and thehazard of soil blowing.

Woodland—If seed trees are present,natural tree regeneration of cutoverareas by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir is adequate to produce a good standof trees.

15 Hoodoo silt loam, 0to 1 percent slopes.

Cropland IVw—Suited to nonirrigatedcrops.

Cropland—Seasonal wetness, thehazard of flooding in the spring, andcool soil temperatures.

25 Kootenai-Bonnergravelly silt loams, 0to 20 percent slopes.

Cropland IVe—Poorly suited tononirrigated crops and is marginallysuited to irrigated crops.

Woodland 3f—Douglas-fir, ponderosapine, lodgepole pine, and westernlarch are the main woodland specieson this unit.

Cropland—If this unit is used forirrigated crops, the main limitation arerunoff, the hazard of water erosion,low available water capacity, andslope.

Woodland—Douglas-fir, ponderosapine, lodgepole pine, and westernlarch are the main woodland specieson this unit.



31 Mission silt loam, 0to 2 percent slopes.

Cropland IVs—This unit is suited tononirrigated small grain.

Woodland 1d—Western red cedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Depth to the hardpan,restricted rooting depth, very slowpermeability, and wetness.

Woodland—Seasonal wetness andsusceptibility to compaction.


Cropland IVe—This unit is suited tononirrigated crops.

Woodland 1d—Western red cedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas–fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited mainly by thedepth to the hard pan, restrictedrooting depth, very slow permeability,wetness, and the hazard of watererosion.

Woodland—Seasonal wetness andsusceptibility of the soil tocompaction.


Cropland VIe—This unit is poorlysuited to cultivated crops.

Woodland 1d—Western red cedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas –fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited mainly by slopeand the hazard of water erosion.

Woodland—Limited by the hazard ofwater erosion, seasonal wetness, andsusceptibility of the soil tocompaction.

34 Odenson silt loam, 0to 2 percent slopes.

Cropland IVw—This unit ismarginally suited to cultivated crops.

Cropland—Limited mainly by wetnessand cool soil temperatures.

35 Pend Oreille siltloam, 5 to 45 percentslopes.

Cropland VIe—Poorly suited tocultivated crops.

Woodland 1r—Western red cedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited mainly by coolsoil temperatures, a short growingseason, the hazard of water erosionand slope.

Woodland—Slope in the steeper areas,the hazard of water erosion, andsusceptibility of the soil tocompaction.

36 Pend Oreille-Hoodoosilt loams, 0 to 30percent slopes.


Woodland 1o—Western redcedar,western white pin, grand fir, andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited by cool soiltemperatures, a short growing season,slope, and the hazard of water erosion.

Woodland—Limited by the hazard ofwater erosion and the susceptibility ofthe soil to compaction.

41 Pywell muck, 0 to 1percent slopes.

Cropland IVw—This unit is suited tononirrigated small grain.

Cropland—Limited by seasonalwetness, the hazard of flooding inspring, cool soil temperatures, and ashort growing season.

42 Pywell-Hoodoocomplex, 0 to 1percent slopes.

Cropland IVw—This unit may be usedfor small grain crops.

Cropland—Limited by wetness, thehazard of flooding in spring, cool soiltemperatures, and a short growingseason.



47 Sagle silt loam, 5 to30 percent slopes.


Woodland 1w—Grand fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, western larch, andlodgepole pine are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited by cool soiltemperatures, a short growing season,slope, and the hazard of water erosion.

Woodland—Limited by seasonalwetness, the hazard of water erosion,and susceptibility of the soil tocompaction.

49 Selle-Elmiracomplex, 0 to 20percent slopes.

Cropland IVe—This unit is suited toirrigated crops and is poorly suited tononirrigated crops.

Woodland 1s—Western redcedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited by droughtiness,slope, the cool temperatures of theSelle soil, and the hazard of soilblowing on the Elmira soil.

Woodland—This unit has fewlimitations for harvesting timber.

50 Selle-MissionComplex, 0 to 12percent slopes.

Cropland I’VE—This unit ismoderately suited to nonirrigatedsmall grain.

Woodland 1d—Western redcedar,western white pine, grand fir, andDouglas-fir are the main woodlandspecies on this unit.

Cropland—Limited by hazard of watererosion, cool soil temperatures, depthto the hardpan, restricted rootingdepth, very slow permeability, and theperched water table in the Missionsoil.

Woodland—Limited by seasonalwetness and the susceptibility of thesoil to compaction.

64 Wrencoe silty clay, 0to 2 percent slopes.

Cropland Vw-This unit is poorlysuited to cultivated crops.

Cropland—Limited by seasonal highwater table, the hazard of flooding andthe clayey soil texture.

(USDA NRCS)

Section 3.3 - Soil Properties

Engineering Index Properties

Table 15 of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of the Bonner CountyArea, Idaho, gives estimates of the engineering classification and of index properties for the majorlayers of contrasting properties within the upper 5 or 6 feet. Most soils have layers of contrastingproperties within this depth range.

The following is a brief description of the engineering properties indicated in the table. For adetailed description please refer to the Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area, Idaho, 1982. • Depth to the upper and lower boundaries of each layer.• Texture is given in the standard terms used by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.• Classification of the soils is determined according to the unified soil classification system

and the system adopted by the American Association of State Highway and TransportationOfficials.


• Rock fragments larger than 3 inches in diameter are indicated as a percentage of the totalsoil on a dry weight basis.

• Percentage passing designated sieves is the percentage of the soil fraction less than 3 inchesin diameter based on an oven-dry weight.

• Liquid limit and plasticity index indicate the plasticity characteristics of a soil.(USDA NRCS)

Physical & Chemical Properties

Table 16 of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of the Bonner CountyArea, Idaho, shows estimates of some characteristics and features that affect soil behavior. Theseestimates are given for the major layers of each soil in the survey area. The estimates are based onfield observations and on test data for these and similar soils.

Following is a brief description of the physical and chemical properties indicated in the table. Fora detailed description, please refer to the Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area, Idaho, 1982. • Clay is the amount and kind of clay greatly affect the fertility and physical condition of the

soil.• Moist bulk density data are used to compute shrink-swell potential, available water capacity,

total pore space and other soil properties.• Permeability refers to the ability of a soil to transmit water or air. It is considered in the

design of soil drainage systems, septic tank absorption fields, and construction where the rateof water movement under saturated conditions affects behavior.

• Available water capacity refers to the quantity of water that the soil is capable of storing foruse by plants.

• Soil reaction is a measure of acidity or alkalinity. It is important in selecting crops and otherplants, in evaluating soil amendments for fertility and stabilization, and in determining therisk of corrosion.

• Shrink-swell potential is the potential for volume change in a soil with a loss or gain inmoisture.

• Erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water.• Erosion factor T is an estimate of the maximum average annual rate of soil erosion by wind

or water that can occur without affecting crop productivity over a sustained period.• Wind erodibility groups are made up of soils that have similar properties affecting their

resistance of wind erosion in cultivated areas.• Organic matter is the plant and animal residue in the soil at various stages of decomposition.(USDA NRCS)

Soil and Water Features

Table 17 of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of the Bonner CountyArea, Idaho, evaluates various soil and water features. Following is a brief description of the soiland water features indicated in Table 17 of the Survey. For a detailed description please refer to theSoil Survey of the Bonner County Area, Idaho, 1982.


• Hydrologic soil groups are used to estimate runoff from precipitation. They are categorizedin four groups, A to D.

• Flooding, the temporary inundation of an area, is caused by overflowing streams, by runofffrom adjacent slopes, or by tides. Water standing for short periods after rainfall or snowmeltand water in swamps and marshes are not considered flooding.

• High water table (seasonal) is the highest level of a saturated zone in the soil in most years.The depth to a seasonal high water table applies to undrained soils. An apparent water tableis a thick zone of free water in the soil. A perched water table is water standing above anunsaturated zone.

• Depth to bedrock is given if bedrock is within a depth of 5 feet. The rock is specified aseither soft or hard.

• Potential frost action is the likelihood of upward or lateral expansion of the soil caused bythe formation of segregated ice lenses (frost heave) and the subsequent collapse of the soiland loss of strength on thawing.

• Risk of corrosion refers to potential soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action thatdissolves or weakens uncoated steel or concrete.

(USDA NRCS)

Sewage Disposal Characteristics

Table 12 of the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey of the Bonner CountyArea, Idaho, shows the degree and the kind of soil limitations that affect septic tank absorptionfields, sewage lagoons, and sanitary landfills. The limitations are considered “slight” if soilproperties and site features are generally favorable for the indicated use and limitations are minorand easily overcome; “moderate” if soil properties or site features are not favorable for the indicateduse and special planning, design, or maintenance is needed to overcome or minimize the limitations;and “severe” if soil properties or site features are so unfavorable or so difficult to overcome thatspecial design, significant increases in construction costs, and possibly increased maintenance arerequired. Regarding sewage disposal suitability, of the 64 soil units inventoried in the Survey, onlythree are rated “slight” for septic tank absorption fields. The balance of soil types are classified“severe.” For a detailed description please refer to the Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area, Idaho,1982. (USDA NRCS)


CHAPTER 4 – FISHERIES

There are around 20,000 species of fish in the world. About 58 percent of these are marine(saltwater) fish, 41 percent are freshwater fish, and one percent are both. There are approximately100 species in Idaho, and the list keeps growing as more non-native fish are released into Idahowaters. There are only 39 species of fish native to Idaho. The rest have been introduced-some byaccident, but most on purpose. (American Fisheries Society)

The diversity of habitat in North Idaho supports a wide variety of fish. Lake Pend Oreille is famousfor its Gerrard rainbow (kamloops); Priest Lake has the record for giant mackinaw and Lake Coeurd’Alene is famous for cutthroat and chinook. The smaller lakes are home to Bass and all the streamsand rivers abound with trout. (Idaho 2000, Official Millennium Travel Guide). Bonner County’sfishing resources provide economic, aesthetic, and recreational value to the county. Thekokanee/rainbow trout fishery in Lake Pend Oreille was valued at over five million dollars annuallyin a mid-1980s economic analysis. Further, it provides tens of thousands of angler days annually,and provides a forage base for wintering bald eagles, which are an aesthetic amenity and touristattraction (Idaho Fish & Game, letter of March 18, 1999).

Bonner County’s waters have produced record-sized fish. The 1947 catch of a 37-pound kamloops(trout) from Lake Pend Oreille has held a Idaho record title for more than half a century. Otherrecord holders are: A 57½-pound mackinaw (lake trout) from Priest Lake in 1971; a 24-poundcutthroat rainbow hybrid in 1991 from Lake Pend Oreille; a 32-pound bull trout in 1949 from LakePend Oreille; a 6-pound, 9.5-ounce kokanee in 1975 from Priest Lake; and a 6-pound, 7-ounce large-scale sucker from Lake Pend Oreille.

Today, the health of the fisheries is in question due to many issues including water pollution, habitat,water levels, migration barriers. Many organizations are actively involved in the protecting andenhancing its fisheries including Idaho Department of Fish and Game, United States Forest Services,Avista Utilities, Idaho Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, Bonner County Sportsmen, the RockCreek Alliance, and Lake Pend Oreille Idaho Club. (Sandpoint.com)

Section 4.1 - Native Species

Westslope cutthroat trout, pygmy whitefish, mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, and bulltrout are native Idaho species found in Bonner County. Prior to the 1940s, cutthroat trout were themost frequently caught fish in the Pend Oreille system. Accounts of good fishing, long stringers of12- to 16-inch fish, and tributaries full of spawners were common at the turn of the century and intothe early 1900s. Statewide the native wild trout have felt the effect of the human population growthover the past century. Impacts on water quality and habitat and increasing numbers of anglers havetaken their toll in many areas, leading to more restrictive fishing regulations. (Idaho Fish & GameCommission)


Westslope Cutthroat Trout

The Idaho State Fish, the cutthroat trout is a symbol of the pristine lakes, rivers, and streams of theWest. As the name suggests, cutthroat are easily recognized by the distinct red slashes beneath theirlower jaw. There are five subspecies of cutthroat trout in Idaho: westslope, Yellowstone, Bonneville,Bear Lake, and Snake River finespotted. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatCuttthroat require cold water, clean gravel, diverse stream habitat and ample cover making themsensitive to habitat changes. Since the cutthroat have evolved in fairly unproductive environments,they have developed the unique adaptation of being exceptionally aggressive and opportunisticfeeders–a characteristic that makes them very popular with anglers. (American Fisheries Society)

State of PopulationThe westslope cutthroat was historically the most abundant native salmonid in Lake Pend Oreille.The trout fishery has declined more dramatically than any other Lake Pend Oreille fishery. It is nowvery reduced and is listed as an “Idaho Specie of Special Concern.” (Idaho Fish & Game;www2.state.id.us)

ManagementCabinet Gorge Fish Hatchery is raising westslope cutthroat. The hatchery was co-funded by AvistaCorp., Bonneville Power Administration, and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. (Idaho Fish& Game; ww2.state.id.us)

Bull Trout

Bull trout are Idaho’s only native species of char, a sub-group of the trout and salmon family thatis distinguished by light-colored spots and fall spawning. It is the only species native to Lake PendOreille and the Clark Fork River drainage. Bull trout are widely distributed in Idaho. They havepopulations which migrate long distances and others which remain in headwater streams their entirelives. (American Fisheries Society)

Habitat Bull trout are secretive fish that require extensive cover in the form of pools, streamside vegetationand log jams. In addition, they require very cold water. Because of their particular habitatrequirements, bull trout are extremely sensitive to habitat degradation. (American Fisheries Society)

State of PopulationHistorically Lake Pend Oreille may have supported up to 10,000 or more adult bull trout, althougha lack of data precludes making a reliable estimate of the actual number. Bull trout use of PendOreille and Clark Fork tributaries for spawning and rearing has declined. Today, Trestle Creek isthe single most important bull trout spawning tributary for bull trout from Lake Pend Oreille (andsupports more spawning bull trout than any other stream known in the U.S. or Canada). (PanhandleBull Trout Technical Advisory Team)


Streams in which bull trout were documented to be present historically, but are now absent, includeMorris Creek (Lightning Creek tributary), Mosquito Creek (Clark Fork tributary), Cedar Creek,Trout Creek (Pack River tributary), Rapid Lightning Creek (Pack River tributary), and Berry Creek.Overall it is estimated that less than 10 percent of the historic range of bull trout in the ClarkFork/Lake Pend Oreille system is accessible to bull trout as a result of dam construction. (PanhandleBull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

The Panhandle Bull Trout Problem Assessment and Conservation Plan identifies urbanencroachment as the single greatest threat to Trestle Creek, the prime bull trout spawning tributary(Idaho Fish & Game, letter of March 18, 1999). Dam building and water diversions have isolatedmany populations. Past road building, agriculture, forestry, grazing, mining, stocking of exoticspecies and over-harvest have all contributed to habitat degradation and population declines(Panhandle Bull Trout Problem Assessment and Conservation Plan). Non-native species, such aslake trout and brook trout threaten bull trout through predation, competition, and hybridization.

Migratory fish in the Pend Oreille basin could access and potentially exchange genetic material withother stocks residing in the Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille River, Priest River and Lake, andprobably Flathead River and Lake. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

Management The Idaho Fish & Game has established several protective limitations: bull trout must be releasedif caught; tributaries to Upper Priest Lake and The Thoroughfare are closed to fishing; fishing inUpper Priest Lake is “catch and release;” and there are restrictions on cutthroat trout fishing intributaries to Lower Priest Lake. (Rothrock and Mosier)

Because of the depressed and declining status of bull trout, they are listed as an endangered speciesunder the Federal Endangered Species Act (American Fisheries Society). In July 1995, IdahoGovernor Phil Batt issued an official plan to restore the bull trout in Idaho water (Panhandle BullTrout Technical Advisory Team). Primarily, the legislation (IC 39-3601(95) provides the mechanismto make protection and restoration happen. This legislation focuses on watersheds at the level wherewater quality problems are best identified and corrected through “watershed advisory groups”(WAGs). In addition, the Basin and Watershed Advisory Groups established through this lawprovide for public involvement, ensuring that bull trout watershed management plans are locallydeveloped. (Panhandle Bull Trout Problem Assessment and Conservation Plan)

Mountain Whitefish

Mountain whitefish are native to lakes and streams of western North America including Idaho.Adults are typically 10-16 inches in length and spawn in the fall or early winter. These fish havebeen an important food fish for humans and provide a variety of angling opportunities ranging fromdry fly to spin fishing. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatMountain whitefish spend much of their time near the bottom of streams and feed mainly on aquaticinsect larvae. (American Fisheries Society)


State of PopulationInformation not available.

ManagementInformation not available.

Pygmy Whitefish

Adult pygmy whitefish reach maximum sizes of about 10 inches and spawn in late fall or earlywinter. Although these small whitefish are not highly sought after for food or as sport fish, theyprovide an important source of food for other fish such as bull, rainbow, brown, and lake trout inIdaho. (American Fisheries Society)

Habitat The pygmy whitefish has a disjunctive distribution across the U.S. and Canada. They can be foundin Lake Superior in the central U.S. and Canada, and in river systems in Alaska, Montana, Idaho,and Washington. Primary foods of pygmy whitefish are crustaceans and aquatic insect larvae.(American Fisheries Society)



Northern pikeminnow

The northern pikeminnow is native to the pacific slope of western North America from Oregon northto British Columbia. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatIn Idaho, the species is found in lakes and streams of the Snake River below Shoshone Falls, andthe Spokane, Pend Oreille, and Kootenai River systems. It prefers lakes and slow moving portionsof streams. They spawn in late spring/early summer in shallow water over a gravelly bottom instreams, but will spawn along lake shores. Eggs apparently are randomly deposited over gravel beds.Females produce from 12,000 to 100,000 eggs, depending on size. Size of mature fish usually variesfrom 2 to 5 pounds, but they have been reported to 29 pounds and 25 inches in length. Juveniles feedon a variety of aquatic invertebrates, but fish are the favored prey of larger fish. In addition to youngsalmon and trout, pikeminnows also feed on sculpins, other minnows, and suckers. (AmericanFisheries Society)

State of PopulationNorthern pikeminnow are native to the Columbia River system. Development of the hydrosystemshas made young salmon more vulnerable to predators, including the pikeminnow, and increasing


populations of the latter species. (2002 Northern Pikeminnow Sports Reward Fishery;www.pikeminnow.org)

ManagementThey are considered serious predators of game fish and much effort has been expended in attemptsto eradicate them. Northern pikeminnow eat millions of young salmon and steelhead in theColumbia and Snake rivers each year. Researchers believe reducing the number of these predatorscan greatly help the salmon and steelhead. (American Fisheries Society)

Section 4.2 - Introduced Species

Introduction of exotics has played both a positive and negative role in shaping the fisheries of thePend Oreille drainage. Lake Superior whitefish were introduced to Pend Oreille in 1889. Easternbrook trout were widely distributed in the early 1900s and were successful in competing with nativecutthroat and eventually replacing them in some watersheds. Lake trout were introduced into Priestand Pend Oreille Lakes in the 1920s, but provided little in the way of a sport fish in either systemduring the first half of the century. (American Fisheries Society)

Brown trout

Brown trout are aggressive piscivores that can grow to large sizes–the record in Idaho is 26 pounds,6 ounces. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatBrown trout are native to Europe and western Asia. They were introduced to North America as asportfish in the mid 1800s. Brown trout spawn in mid to late fall in rivers and streams, and spendtheir adult years in habitats ranging from small streams to large lakes. Anadromous populations havedeveloped in many parts of the world. Brown trout are more tolerant of warm water temperaturesthan Idaho’s native trout species. (American Fisheries Society) Cocolalla Creek provides spawninghabitat for brown trout. (Idaho Fish & Game; ww2.state.id.us)

State of PopulationBrown trout is an “Exotic Specie” as defined by Idaho Fish & Game Department. “Exotic,” “alien,”“introduced,” “nonindigenous,” and “nonnative” are all synonyms for species that humansintentionally or unintentionally introduce into an area outside a species’ natural range. (Idaho Fish& Game; www2.state.id.us)


Rainbow trout

Known for an aggressive fight and excellent taste, rainbow trout are one of the most popular sportfishes in North America. Coloration varies with size and habitat, but rainbows usually have a pinkor reddish band along their sides and white tipped fins. The anadromous form of the rainbow trout


is known as the steelhead. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatRainbow trout are native to the Pacific coastal states and provinces of North America, and to muchof the Rocky Mountains west of the continental divide. Rainbow trout are an adaptable species thathas been widely transplanted and is now found in lakes, large rivers, and small streams throughoutthe world.

State of PopulationRainbow trout have been very successfully domesticated and are widely utilized by fisherymanagement agencies to supplement sport fisheries. They are also an important commercialaquaculture species in Idaho. (American Fisheries Society)

ManagementRainbow trout are predators of kokanee salmon. As of October 2002, Idaho State Fish and Gameis encouraging Lake Pend Oreille anglers to donate rainbow and lake trout to the Bonner CountyFood Bank if they do not wish to keep fish for their own consumption. For the last two years, theState has encouraged increased predator harvest of rainbow and lake trout to improve kokaneesurvival.

Arctic grayling

Habitat Arctic grayling are found around the earth at arctic latitudes. They are not native to Idaho, but havebeen introduced to provide fishing opportunities in some alpine lakes. Graylings spawn in the springwith adults typically reaching 10 to 15 inches in length and live as long as 11 to 12 years. They havesail-like, colorful dorsal fins and are well noted for their eagerness to fly out of the water. (AmericanFisheries Society) The Arctic grayling is considered an “Exotic Specie.” “Exotic,” “alien,”“introduced,” “nonindigenous,” “nonnative” are all synonyms for species that humans intentionallyor unintentionally introduced into an area outside a species’ natural range. (Idaho Fish & Game;www2.state.id.us)


Management Information not available.

Kokanee

Kokanee salmon are abundant in this region, providing game fishing and also nourishment for thelarger trophy species, including mackinaw (lake trout) and rainbow. (State of Idaho, Fish and GameWeb site)


Habitat The kokanee’s life cycle mimics the ocean-going sockeye salmon, but on a smaller scale. Kokaneespend their entire life in fresh water, and once they reach their home waters, they spawn and die. Asthey follow the urge to return to their natal waters, their bodies turn a remarkable crimson red andthey develop a hooked jaw. The males will fight each other for the possibility to spawn with afemale. The male fish congregate around the female fish as they build redds, or nests, in cleangravels to nurture and protect the fertilized eggs.

State of PopulationIn 2001, for the first time in history, wild kokanee spawning dropped below the hatchery egg take.Poor fry production in 2002 will mean few adult fish for spawning in 2005 and 2006. The survivalrate between age one and age two last fall was only 20 percent (predators are eating 80 percent).There is no indication that enough lake trout and rainbow have been harvested to prevent a kokaneecollapse. (State of Idaho, Fish and Game Web site)

ManagementCritical management of the kokanee resource continues. Harvest of lake trout and rainbow byanglers is critical to the survival of the kokanee. Kokanee fishing remains closed due to a severelydepressed population in Lake Pend Oreille. Water levels in Lake Pend Oreille have been changedin an effort to produce more spawning areas for kokanee. During the last five winters, water leveladjustments suggest that there is a strong trend for kokanee survival to improve during winters whenthe level was raised. (State of Idaho, Fish and Game Web site)

Lake Trout (Mackinaw)

Lake trout are another introduced member of the char group. They are similar to bull trout in thatthey are aggressive piscivores that can grow to large sizes. The record in Idaho is 57 ½ pounds. Laketrout are slow growing, long-lived species that may not mature for 10 years, and can live more than30 years. (American Fisheries Society)

HabitatUnlike most trout and char in Idaho, which require streams and rivers for spawning and earlyrearing, lake trout generally carry out their entire life cycle in a lake. For this reason, they havesuccessfully been able to out compete native species such as cutthroat and bull trout, which havelimited habitat to utilize. (American Fisheries Society) Lake trout prefer the cold, clear, deeper areasof lakes, and use the shallow shorelines only when the water is cold.

State of PopulationThe limit on lake trout in Priest Lake is 6 per day. Upper Priest Lake is also open for lake troutharvest in 2002.

ManagementHarvest of lake trout is still a priority at Lake Pend Oreille in order to help reduce predation on adwindling kokanee population (Idaho Fish & Game; www2.state.id.us)


Mysis relicta (shrimp)

The introduction of Mysis relicta, the aposteme shrimp, to Priest and Pend Oreille lakes in the 1960schanged the fisheries of each lake. Mysis were introduced in an effort to enhance food for kokanee.Mysis also provided an excellent food source for lake trout, causing increased productivity and apopulation explosion. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

HabitatInformation not available.

State of PopulationThe mysis shrimp population in Lake Pend Oreille has been monitored for many years. Shrimpdensities have declined 37% between 1995 and 2002. 2002 findings indicate that the decline iscontinuing at a rather steady pace. (Lake Pend Oreille Quarterly Report, July, August, September2002)

ManagementA reduction in the number of shrimp is considered by biologists to be a good thing, since they eatzooplankton, an important food for the lake’s declining kokanee population. (Lake Pend OreilleQuarterly Report, July, August, September 2002)

Section 4.2 - Stream Segments/Shorelines (Spawning, hatching, rearing)

Impacts to fisheries from development are typically associated with modifications to floodplains,riparian areas, and stream banks, which in turn affect stream channel stability, shade, cover and otherfeatures which create fish habitat (Thurow 1988, Liknes and Graham 1988, Rieman and Apperson1989). Improperly placed stream crossings can block the migration of fish to spawning habitat(Rieman and Apperson 1989). Conversion of wooded lake shores to lawns, beaches, and home sitesreduces the availability of food and cover, and increases the transport of nutrients and otherpollutants to lakes (Soltero and Hall 1985, Montgomery Watson Engineers 1993). Bonner Countysupports a wide variety of sought after game fish species, with world record bull trout and rainbowtrout coming from Bonner County waters. Native westslope cutthroat and bull trout are popularspecies with anglers, occupy stream and lake habitats, and are sensitive to habitat disturbance. Bothspecies have declined considerably throughout their range, with bull trout currently being consideredfor listing under the federal Endangered Species Act. Construction of roads and development ofstream sides for commercial and residential purposes have been implicated in the decline of somespawning stocks of these species (Rieman and Apperson 1989, Liknes and Graham 1988, Riemanand McIntyre 1993 and 1996).

Lake Pend Oreille

Spawning and rearing occur in the following Lake Pend Oreille tributaries: Upper Pack River; Southfork of Grouse Creek; Trestle Creek; confluence of Lightning Creek and Rattle Creek; confluenceof Porcupine Creek and Lightning Creek; East Fork Creek; Char Creek; Savage Creek, nearconfluence of Twin Creek and Clark Fork; Granite Creek; West Gold Creek; and North Gold Creek.


The importance of Trestle Creek, northwest of Hope, to the bull trout cannot be overstated (IdahoFish & Game letter). Trestle Creek is the single most important spawning tributary for bull trout inthe Lake Pend Oreille ecosystem and supports the highest density of spawning bull trout of anystream currently known in the United States or Canada. In 1998, more than 1,000 adult bull troutwere estimated to be spawning in Trestle Creek, making it one of the largest runs of bull trout.Juvenile bull trout rear in Trestle Creek before migrating to Lake Pend Oreille. Trestle Creek alsosupports native westslope cutthroat trout and spawning kokanee salmon.

Rearing occurs in the following Lake Pend Oreille tributaries: Pack River; North Fork GrouseCreek; South Fork Grouse Creek; and Lightning Creek.

Migratory routes include: Pack River; Clark Fork River; Lower Grouse Creek; and Lower LightningCreek. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

Upper and Lower Priest Lake

Spawning and rearing occur in Upper Priest River and its tributaries, and tributaries to Priest andUpper Priest Lakes. These tributaries provide valuable fish spawning and rearing habitat. Inaddition, Granite Creek, South Fork Granite Creek, Lion Creek, Two Mouth Creek, and IndianCreek are all significant tributaries for fish spawning and rearing. Only the Middle and North Forksof the East River, and Moores Creek are designated as protected areas for resident fisheries andwildlife. The Priest River contains only limited populations of wild trout due to low streamdischarges and elevated water temperatures. (Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

Section 4.3 - Game Species

Game fish species that are present in Lake Pend Oreille and its tributaries include lake (mackinaw),brown, brook, rainbow, and bull trout, large and smallmouth bass, yellow perch, northern pike, lakesuperior whitefish, pumpkinseed sunfish, black crappie, bluegill, channel catfish, sunfish, and brownbullhead. (Bonneville Power Administration)

Game fish species in Priest Lake include westslope cutthroat trout, largemouth bass, yellow perch,mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, and bull trout.

Section 4.4 - Non-Game Species

Nongame fish species include redside shiner, largescale suckers, longnose dace, northern squawfish,peamouth, tench, and sculpin. (Bonneville Power Administration)

Section 4.5 - Sensitive Species

Candidate: NoneRare: NoneThreatened: Bull troutEndangered: Bull troutSpecies of Concern: Westslope cutthroat trout, bull trout


In 1949 and 1950 bull trout eggs were collected from tributaries to the lower Clark Fork River inMontana. IDFG raised a portion of these eggs in hatcheries at Clark Fork and McCall. In 1952,approximately 9,700 juvenile fish were released into Spring Creek and the lower Clark Fork Riverin Idaho as a result of the program. Spring Creek does not currently support bull trout, and theintroduction does not appear to have been successful.

An introduction of hatchery reared bull trout from Alaska was made in some tributaries to LakePend Oreille in 1966, but this introduction was not believed to be successful. In 1991, a limitednumber of bull trout from the lower Clark Fork River and Gold Creek were artificially spawned.These fish were released in 1993. Currently, hatchery-reared bull trout are not stocked in the PendOreille drainage. (Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

Threats to the Bull Trout Population in Lake Pend Oreille

Limiting factors for bull trout can result from either human activities or natural events, actingseparately or cumulatively. This section represents a background discussion of activities and eventswhich can contribute to threats to bull trout.

• Timber harvests and associated activities such as road construction and skidding can affectthe amount, form and function of woody debris, the composition of substrate, and thestability and forms of channels.

• Roads and railroads in the Pend Oreille basin have been constructed to provide for timberharvests, mining, recreation, and as infrastructure for urban development, travel, andcommerce. Roads built within stream riparian areas typically result in reduced streamshading and reduced potential for large woody debris recruitment. Roads and railroadcrossings over streams have resulted in formation of fish migration barriers in the basin.Stream crossings result in the constriction of flows in the streams. Roads adjacent to orcrossing streams increase the risk of toxic materials entering streams and causing fish killsthrough accidental or illegal spills.

• Livestock grazing affects and reduces the vegetation adjacent to the stream, thereby reducingcover and shade, and weakening stream banks. This results in bank stability being lost, bankretreat, bank erosion, and sediment delivery to the stream.

• Mining in the Lake Pend Oreille watershed has produced effluent from closed or abandonedmines. Tailing dams and waste rock dumps from mines in the Gold Creek drainage havecreated barriers for bull trout.

• Two hydroelectric dams are present in the Lake Pend Oreille Key Watershed. Other damsin the Clark Fork watershed influence flows and other aspects of water flowing into Idahofrom Montana. Impact to the bull trout include blockage of migration corridors and habitatmodification.

• Expanding urban development has had an impact on the bull trout. Residential developmentadjacent to streams alters flow patterns and floodplain functions and increases sedimentation.Urbanization causes septic tanks, drain fields, and stormwater runoff, impermeable surfaces,and stream alterations. These impacts all affect the bull trout habitat.

• Wildfire control has caused a shift in forest species composition and stocking levels,predisposing forest to large scale mortality. Drought conditions can further dispose the


forests to increased wildfire incidence and intensity, resulting in significant negative impactson water quality and fish habitat.

• Illegal harvesting and fishing mortality affect the survival of the bull trout. Bull troutspawners are particularly vulnerable to poaching because they often enter small tributarystreams several months prior to spawning and congregate in pools. The Pack River andLightning creek watersheds’ provide easy access by roads to prime spawning areas. Poachersharvest an average of 22 bull trout per week, with additional fish believed to be mortallyinjured by snagging or other gear. Existing information indicates that poaching appears tobe a serious threat where spawning populations are limited by available habitat or otherfactors.

• Disease has not been identified as a significant factor in the decline of native bull trout.Research conducted at the University of California at Davis indicates bull trout are resistantto whirling disease. Interactions with introduced non-native fishes through competition,predation, and hybridization have decreased the likelihood that some bull trout populationswill persist. Introduced brown trout and rainbow trout have been associated with the declineof bull trout populations in other watersheds. However, bull trout and rainbow trout arefound together in many Lake Pend Oreille tributary stream reaches, and have co-existed inthe lake since rainbows were introduced in 1919. The expansion of lake trout populationsis believed to have severely depressed bull trout in Priest Lake. Replacement of bull troutby lake trout has occurred in other lakes where lake trout have been introduced.

• Supplementation of wild bull trout stocks with hatchery bull trout may be harmful byaltering or reducing genetic diversity. The release of artificially reared progeny may reducethe effective population size of local populations because of the greater reproductive successof those adults used to provide hatchery progeny.

(Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)

Bull and Westslope Cutthroat Trout Streams

The bull trout was designated as “threatened” on June 10, 1998, under the Federal EndangeredSpecies Act. Westslope cutthroat trout are the official Idaho State Fish, are designated a Species ofSpecial Concern by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and a Sensitive Species by the U.S.Forest Service. Both species require high quality habitat, including clean water, pools, spawninggravels relatively free of fines, stable stream beds, healthy riparian zones and floodplains, and freeaccess to migrate to spawning areas (Rieman and Apperson 1989).

Potential Impacts

• Water quality degradation.• Loss of important habitat features, incubating eggs, and juveniles due to loss of stream

channel stability.• Loss of spawning habitat and reproduction to presence of migration barriers.

Suggested Mitigation

• Restrict development in westslope cutthroat and bull trout stream corridors.


• Maintain large trees along streams and floodways to provide recruitment of large woodydebris to provide channel stability and cover for fish, maintain stream bank and floodplainstability, and provide shade to keep stream temperatures cool.

• Buffer streams and floodplains from roads, livestock, and residential or commercialdevelopment to protect stream habitat and developments from flood damage, and limit entryof nutrients, sediment and other pollutants to waterways. At a bare minimum, adopt BMP’sfrom the Idaho Forest Practices Act (FPA) for stream protection zones pertaining to grounddisturbance, road placement, and retention of trees. Idaho Fish & Game recommendsadopting Forest Service guidelines from the Inland Native Fish Strategy (INFISH) asINFISH provides greater protection for these species.

• Ensure that all stream crossings on County roads and roads associated with newdevelopments are large enough to pass high flow events (Idaho Fish & Game recommendsdesign for 100-year events and designs which allow movement of water through floodplains)and provide for fish passage in fish bearing streams. Consider requiring consultation witha hydrologist in steep terrain or in important tributary watersheds.

• Enforce stormwater regulations.

Subwatersheds Descriptions/Threats/Actions

Table 4-1 represents prioritized threats and their contributions to limiting bull trout populations inthe Lake Pend Oreille Key Watershed. The first number indicated the priority of the threat, and thenumber in parenthesis indicates what percent each threat is contributing to suppress the bull troutpopulation. The high restoration priority of watersheds have been ranked in order of probability ofpersistence (100 year) based upon redd count data. Lightning Creek and all its tributaries wereevaluated as one watershed when assessing probability of persistence. In addition, probability ofpersistence was also evaluated independently for each tributary within the entire Lightning CreekWatershed.


Table 4-1: Prioritization Chart of Threats to Bull Trout

Watershedname andrank based onhighestprobability ofbull troutpresence

Priority forRestoration/Protection

Habitat/WatershedCondition

Potential toincreasebull troutnumbers

Threats

TimberHarvest

Roads Agriculture Mining Dams andDiversions

Urbanization/Recrea

tion

Catastrophic fire

FishingMortality

ExoticSpecies

Other

Lake PendOreille 1

High - High - - - - 2 (23) 4 (10) - 3 (22) 1 (45) -

Trestle Creek2

High Good Low 5 (9) 3 (12) - - 3 (12) 1 (55) - 2 (14) - -

Gold Creek 3 High Fair Low 4 (5) 2 (12) - 1 (70) 6 (1) 6 (1) 6 (1) 5 (4) - 3 (6)powerline

North GoldCreek 4

High Good Low 2 (20) 4 (2) - - 4 (2) 1 (60) 4 (2) 3 (13) - -

Granite Creek5

High Fair Med 2 (20) 2 (20) - - 7 (2) 1 (43) - 4 (8) 5 (4) 6 (3) koktrap

EF LightningCreek 6-1

High Poor High 2 (38) 1 (40) - - - - - 3 (17) 4 (5) -

Char Cr. 6-2 High Poor High 2 (28) 1 (55) - - - - - 3 (17) - -

WellingtonCreek 6-3

High Fair High 2 (25) 1 (60) - - - - - 3 (10) 4 (5) -

Rattle Cr. 6-4 High Fair High 2 (20) 1 (70) - - - - - 3 (10) - -

LightningCreek 6-5

High Poor High 2 (25) 1 (55) - - - 5 (1) - 3 (14) 4 (5) -

PorcupineCreek 6-6

High Poor High 3 (15) 1 (40) - - - - - 4 (10) 1(40) -

Savage Cr. 6-7

High Poor High 2 (27) 1 (53) - - - - - 4 (5) 4 (5) -

Grouse Cr. 7 High Poor High 1 (31) 3 (14) 4 (13) - 7 (2) 2 (24) - 6 (5) 5 (11) -

JohnsonCreek 8

High Fair Med 2 (30) 1 (45) - - 3 (13) - - 4 (10) 5 (2) -

Pack River 9 High Poor High 3 (12) 2 (18) 3 (12) - - 1 (22) 3 (12) 3 (12) 3 (12) -

Watershedname andrank based onhighestprobability ofbull troutpresence

Priority forRestoration/Protection

Habitat/WatershedCondition

Potential toincreasebull troutnumbers

Threats

TimberHarvest

Roads Agriculture Mining Dams andDiversions

Urbanization/Recrea

tion

Catastrophic fire

FishingMortality

ExoticSpecies

Other


Twin Creek10

High Poor Med 4 (10) 2 (15) 1 (50) - - - - 4 (10) 2 (15) -

Clark Fork 11 High Poor High 5 (1) 5 (1) - - 1 (91) 2 (2) - 2 (2) 2 (2) -

Strong Creek12

High Good High 3 (10) 4 (5) - - 1 (65) 2 (20) - - - -

WF Blue Cr. Medium Good ? 3 (1) - - - 1 (95) - 3 (1) - 2(3) -

RapidLightningCreek

Medium Poor ? 4 (10) 2 (23) 5 (7) - - 1 (43) - - 3 (17) -

Spring Creek Medium Fair ? 6 (5) 1 (35) - - 2 (20) 5 (10) - - 3 (15) 3 (15)

Hell RoaringCreek

Medium Poor ? 4(8) 3 (15) - - 1 (42) 2 (30) - - 5(5) -

McCormickCreek

Medium Poor ? 3 (17) 2 (20) - - - - 1 (60) - - 4 (3)

Fishing mortality includes bull trout killed through illegal harvest and through catch and release practices.(Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory)


Table 4-2 provides some Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team recommended actions thatprovide guidance for goals and implementation policies for Bonner County regarding the protectionof the bull trout. The recommended actions are those in which Bonner County has the jurisdictionto be involved, implement, or enforce.

Table 4-2: Bull Trout Recommended Actions

Lake, River, orStream

Action

Char Creek Be involved in a watershed recovery plan for the drainage.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Clark Fork River Work with landowners and others to provide means for maintainingriparian vegetation for bank stability.

East ForkLightning Creek

Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

GraniteCreek/SullivanSprings

Work with Bonner County to restrict floodplain development to preventfurther loss of floodplain function.

Grouse Creek Solicit cooperation from private landowners to assess and upgrade vehiclecrossings on private land.Pursue land acquisition and/or conservation easements to prevent furtherflood plain damage.Encourage Bonner County to adopt and enforce zoning regulations whichwill prevent or discourage floodplain development or damage.Work with county road maintenance people, land managers, and privatelandowners to avoid road construction or repair work which will result inincreased peak flows, stream channel alterations, fish migration barriers, orsediment delivery.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Johnson Creek Conduct regular county road maintenance along the creek to preventfailures, and seek methods to mitigate loss of large woody debris to thestream channel.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Lightning CreekMain stem

Avoid construction of new roads, particularly on unstable soils or withinstream floodplains.County roads in good shape need to be maintained on a regular schedule.Any new obliteration work needs to be stabilized and return roads tonatural hillslope contours.Size bridges to allow for adequate movement of water and in channelbedload.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

North Gold Creek Develop shade standards for Gold Creek.

Lake, River, orStream

Action


Pack RiverMain stem

Encourage Bonner County to adopt and enforce zoning regulations whichwill prevent or discourage floodplain development or damage.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Porcupine Creek Be involved in a watershed recovery plan for the drainage.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Rattle Creek Be involved in a watershed recovery plan for the drainage.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Savage Creek Avoid new road construction due to unstable slopes.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

South Gold Creek Work to educate riparian land owners about the benefits of maintaining orrestoring riparian habitat. Raise awareness of detrimental effects from building in the stream floodplain.Pursue land acquisition and/or conservation easement of riparian areas.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Strong Creek Promote information and education for private land owners on streamenhancement and stewardship activities.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Trestle Creek Solicit cooperation from private landowners to assess and upgrade vehiclecrossings on private land.Work with Bonner County to adopt and enforce zoning regulations, whichwill prevent or discourage floodplain development or damage.Work with Bonner County and USFS to maintain and improve both countyand forest system roads in Trestle Creek.Actively pursue land acquisition and/or conservation easementopportunities with private land owners to secure and/or prevent furtherdamage to the Trestle Creek floodplain.Develop incentives and/or provide opportunities for education toencourage riparian zone land owners to learn more about the importance ofmaintaining stream banks and riparian areas for bull trout.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Twin Creek It may be necessary to modify the crossing to allow stream restoration.Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.

Wellington Creek Incorporate any shade standards in regulations regarding private property.(Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team)


Section 4.6 - Hatcheries

Sandpoint

The Sandpoint Hatchery is located in Bonner County on the south shoreline of the Pend OreilleRiver about two miles south of the town of Sandpoint. Although the hatchery was closed in 1985,it was reopened in 1990 in response to public demand in the Panhandle Region. Public relations withlocal sportsmen’s groups (Bonner County Sportsmen’s Association, Trout Unlimited, and Lake PendOreille Idaho Club) is a major benefit of the station. Duties include managing a small-scale specialtystation rearing rainbow trout, Westslope cutthroat trout, chinook salmon, kokanee salmon, andKootenai white sturgeon, managing a net pen rearing program, and operating or helping in NorthIdaho egg-taking programs. (State of Idaho, Fish and Game Web site)

Cabinet Gorge

Cabinet Gorge hatchery is located near the town of Clark Fork. The Cabinet Gorge Hatchery isprimarily a kokanee fry production station with capacity to rear 15 million two-inch long fry. Thesefish are to help mitigate the construction of the Albeni Falls Dam that raises the lake level of LakePend Oreille and the Cabinet Gorge dam that backs up Noxon Reservoir into Montana. During 1997,Cabinet Gorge released 3,746,571 kokanee fry. The kokanee fry release is timed to coincide withthe altered cycles of zooplankton blooms in the lake caused by Mysis sp. shrimp. (State of Idaho,Fish and Game Web site)

Cabinet Gorge Hatchery is recognized by the surrounding communities as the major contributor ofkokanee to the Lake Pend Oreille fishery. The importance of this lake fishery to the local economyis presently estimated at over five million dollars. With the decline of kokanee numbers in recentyears, increasing attention is placed on the hatchery.


CHAPTER 5 - WILDLIFE

Section 5.1 - General Overview

The varied vegetation and topography of Bonner County offer diverse habitat for a wide variety ofwildlife. The plentiful waters provided by the County’s rivers, lakes, and streams are wintering andbreeding grounds for hundreds of bald eagles and ospreys and thousands of waterfowl. Forestedfoothills and mountains and the broad grass valleys provide habitat for moose, bear, elk, and deerand countless species of song birds, fur-bearing mammals, predators, and non-game animals.Wildlife is an important resource to Bonner County in terms of aesthetic values, economics, andrecreation.

Due to the rich diversity of the wildlife species in Bonner County, it is not practical to enumerateand address most of the species individually. This chapter provides a broad overview of the generalnature of the wildlife populations in Bonner County and identifies the key big-game and sensitivespecies and critical wildlife habitats. The potential impacts of human activities on wildlife foodsources, cover, and range are also addressed.

Estimates of wildlife numbers in Bonner County are also very difficult to measure due to terrain,movement of wildlife over state and county lines, changing population influences, etc. Numbersprovided here for game animal are gross estimates only.

Section 5.2 - Waterfowl

Bonner County’s wealth of waterways and wetlands provides important breeding, nesting, andmigratory waterfowl habitat. The Pend Oreille system may hold up to 25 percent of the total redheadduck population in the Pacific Flyway (Alaska to Mexico) during the winter. Nearly 60,000waterfowl were counted in early January of 2000 wintering along the river system from the Montanaborder on the Clark Fork River to the Washington border on the Pend Oreille River. (Breeding andmigration waterfowl counts differ markedly from mid-winter numbers. However, those particularestimates of waterfowl population are not available.) American coots numbered 30,100 in theJanuary 2000 count. Coots are important because they are frequent prey for wintering bald eagles.Redhead and lesser scaup represent the greatest number of ducks on the Pend Oreille system in thewinter. Lesser scaup are a recent concern due to a long-term, continent-wide population decline.Table 5-1 shows the Idaho Fish & Game mid-winter waterfowl counts for 21 years on the ClarkFork/Pend Oreille River course. (Cole, 2000)

Table 5-1: Mid-winter Waterfowl Counts on Clark Fork/Pend Oreille River System

Year Ducks Canada Geese Tundra Swans American Coots1978 9,780 300 107 D1979 Information not available1980 9,262 1,208 24 D1981 13,090 585 88 D

Year Ducks Canada Geese Tundra Swans American Coots


1982 17,602 1,638 183 D1983 27,015 634 94 D1984 17,660 1,052 148 D1985 23,817 552 70 D1986 Information not available1987 28,422 2,381 217 D1988 18,454 1,333 30 D1989 32,188 1,239 170 D1990 26,289 1,278 192 D1991 14,408 248 34 D1992 6,413 1,397 91 D1993 5,959 201 91 D1994 15,657 2,076 207 D1995 40,047 766 140 12,6601996 19,505 1,092 137 23,4851997 20,932 201 130 13,3501998 9,690 310 73 10,8851999 30,787 635 98 19,0402000 25,161 2,700 194 30,100

D = Data not available.

Tundra SwansLake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River provide stopovers for the graceful, long-necked tundraswan. These birds visit the area in the spring on their migration to nesting areas on the tundra far tothe north and make a return stop in the fall. A few may even winter in the area and can be viewedin the Pack River delta area, the Clark Fork delta, near the Sandpoint Long Bridge, and various spotsalong the Pend Oreille River. (USDA, 1989)

GrebesAll five members of the grebe family can be seen on Lake Pend Oreille: the western, red-necked,horned, eared, and pied-billed. Large flocks of the western grebes can be seen on the lake during thespring. Others are typically found in pairs or groups throughout the lake area searching for fish prey.A nesting colony of western grebes are known to live in the Denton Slough area from May throughJuly. (USDA, 1989)

LoonsThe loon, known for its distinctive night call, is known to populate the Lake Pend Oreille areaduring the spring, summer, and fall. These birds are becoming more of a concern because their


nesting habitat in the West is becoming limited. Loons can be easily disturbed during the nestingperiod. The most abundant loon on the lake is the common loon, while others are known to visit thearea occasionally. Loons can be seen in places such as Bottle Bay and the Clark Fork Delta duringthe spring. (USDA, 1989) Section 5.3 - Big Game

Deer

White-tailed DeerThe white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus, is the most widespread deer in the world. BonnerCounty’s population of white-tailed deer is estimated to be in the range of 10,000. Scientistsrecognize 30 white-tailed subspecies in North America. North America’s white-tailed populationis estimated at 20 to 25 million animals. The white-tailed is by far the most popular game in theU.S., sought by some 11 million hunters each fall.

A deer’s behavior is directly related to the environment in which it lives. In increasingly suburbanareas where white-taileds and people live side-by-side, humans are the driving force on deer.Houses, roads and everyday comings and goings affect where and when deer feed, travel, and bed.

American Indians believed the moon, wind, and rain affected deer movements. Current studiesconfirm that deer activity indeed varies depending on temperature, moon phases, and evenbarometric pressure. White-taileds, especially mature bucks, are active at night, preferring to feed,mingle, and mate under a cloak of darkness. However, no deer is completely nocturnal. Deer remainactive at dawn and start to move again at dusk.

Although white-taileds are social animals that are found in herds, the sexes stay largely divided.Outside the breeding season, a mature buck almost never stays with a “doe unit,” or a group of doesand fawns. Bucks travel alone or band together for most of the year.

The white-tailed’s amazing adaptability allows it to live in virtually every region and climate ofNorth America. Naturally, deer behavior differs slightly from region to region.

The early and ongoing colonization of America did little to diminish the white-tailed’s presence. Tothe contrary, it helped increase and broaden deer populations. Before colonization, forests werelarge, dense, and contiguous. As humans cleared the land, deer moved into diverse new habitats andflourished. Deer fed and mated in open fields and cutovers. Nearby woodlands provided cover andwarmth. Today, as the sub-urbanization of America continues, white-tailed herds continue to growand thrive in small, broken habitats.

Deer eat forbs, like flowering plants and weeds. Deer love sweet fruits like apples, crabapples, andpersimmons. Acorns, beechnuts, pecans, and other hard mast are important fall and winter foods.Mast is high-energy food that helps deer pack on fat. Protein-rich plants and crops, such as peas, areessential in a deer’s diet. They provide nutrients for body and antler growth. In winter, deer are oftenforced to feed on twigs and other woody browse, which are low in nutrients.


The white-tailed’s four-chambered stomach stores food and breaks it down over time. Thus, a deercan eat quickly and then find a safe place to bed down and chew its cud, out of sight and mind ofpredators.

Deer are crepuscular animals, meaning they move and feed heavily at twilight. However, modernresearch shows that white-taileds need to feed four to six times a day.

White-taileds rely on their keen senses of smell, sight, and hearing to detect predators. Primarypredators include mountain lions, wolves, coyotes, wild dogs, and humans. Upon sensing trouble,a deer’s main defense is to run. When cornered, bucks will ward off predators with their antlers.Deer are one of the fastest running species in the forest, but are also good swimmers and do nothesitate to take to water to evade predators. (Hunting Network)

Mule DeerMule deer originally received their name because of their large ears, which resemble that of a mule.The mule deer population is significantly smaller than the white-tailed deer population in BonnerCounty, ranging in the neighborhood of 1,200 animals. They have incredible hearing, great noses,and can see very well. Mature does often give birth to twins, while yearling does generally only haveone fawn. Fawns, which are typically born in May or June, usually stay with their mother for thefirst year of their life. Harsh winters take a major toll on young fawns. As the temperature drops andthe snow begins to pile high, these small deer have a very difficult time surviving. Predators suchas cougars, bobcats, and coyotes are always looking for the weak and old. This, combined withwinter ranges that may have diminished food sources, places fawns at great risk.

For many mule deer, the first winter is often the most difficult. By spring, these deer are very livelyand ready to move to higher ground. Mule deer return to their summer ranges as soon as the snowstarts melting and temperatures begin to warm. Mule deer bucks are very crafty and an increasinglyrare site. Because of the incredible pressures put upon them, the numbers of trophy bucks arecontinually declining.

Antler growth typically begins in February or March through mid- to late-August. Genetics,nutrition, and age have much to do with antler growth. Yearling bucks will often sport a spike ortwo-point frame for the first year of their life.

Throughout the spring and summer months, antlers grow at an incredible rate—with some largebucks, up to a quarter of an inch per day. During these months, antlers are very tender, even havingflies or other insects landing on them can be annoying. In addition, the antlers are very soft and easyto damage during this time. As the antlers harden and the velvet dries up, bucks will begin to rubthem on small trees or bushes. This continues until mid-winter when the buck sheds the antlers.

Does begin to come into heat in November and bucks are naturally drawn to their aroma. Many muledeer bucks will fight to the death over breeding rights with any doe. Big bucks will loose valuablebody fat during the mating season, especially in areas with low buck-to-doe ratios.

As January and February roll around the bucks begin shedding their antlers. The antler breaks at thebase near the skull. A buck will usually drop each of the antlers several days apart, it is rare for both


to fall at the same time. Shortly after shedding, the bucks begin growing new antlers. (MonsterMuleys)

Elk

Elk are a member of the deer family. Native American Shawnee first called them “Wapita” meaningwhite or pale deer, probably referring to their light colored rump. Later, scientists adopted the samename. The name “elk” was given to the large deer by early English colonists, ignoring the fact thatthe name had long been used for the European moose.

Elk were once found throughout most of the United States and southern Canada. By the mid-twentieth century, hunters had killed so many that they survived only in the region west of theRocky Mountains. Successful conservation and reintroduction efforts have brought elk back toseveral regions. Rough estimates place the number of elk in Bonner County at 1,000.

Adults reach a shoulder height of four to five feet, and a length up to nine feet or more. Adult bullelk may weigh more than 1,000 pounds before the rut, but seldom exceed 900 pounds. Smaller cowsusually weigh 500 to 600 pounds.

An elk’s body can range from a pale gray to tan and brown; brown or tan above and darkerunderneath. Elk have slender legs and a thick neck. Their legs, head, and thick neck fur are a darkerbrown. Their rump patch and very short tail are a light tan color. An elk calf is light tawny-brownwith white spots that are lost during their first change of coat in August.

Elk feed on all kinds of plants, but primarily graze on grass. They also eat the sedges, forbs, twigs,needles of fir and juniper, many young hardwood trees (such as chokeberry and aspen), anddeciduous shrubs (willow and serviceberry)—especially during the winter.

Adult male elks, called bulls, have a dark brown mane or ruff on their throats. Older bulls’ hugeantlers can weigh 25 pounds. The antlers may reach five feet in length and usually have five tinesprojecting from the main branch for a total of six points per side. The antlers are shed in late winter(March or April). About one week afterward, males begin to grow new ones. The new antlers arecovered with “velvet.” Females, called cows, do not have antlers, have shorter manes and are 25percent smaller than bull elk.

In the spring, after calves are born, elk move slowly back up to higher mountain pastures. As matingseason begins, the elk move from the high mountain valleys called parks to the lower valleys. Therethey gather into large herds of both sexes and all ages. They spend the winter in the wooded slopesand often dense woods of the lower valleys, where the snow is not too deep.

Elk cows have a strong herding instinct. During spring and summer, herds of cows and their juvenilecalves usually graze separately from the bulls. An old cow usually leads this summer herd. Asyearling (spike) bulls age, they spend less time with the cow herds. During winter, males andfemales forage together.


Bull elk can move silently through forests at speeds up to 35 miles per hour. Both bulls and cowsare strong swimmers. Their walking stride is 30 to 60 inches, but when running this length canincrease to 14 feet. When walking, their hind hoof prints fall slightly ahead of and overlap their foreprints. When bounding their hind prints and fore prints are separate. In mud or snow, the prints of“dew claws” are often visible behind their lobed main prints.

A bull elk announces the rut, or mating season (September through October), by bugling. He beginswith a low bellow followed by his far-reaching whistle. During the fall rutting season, bulls rub theirantlers on trees, “horn” the ground, and then roll in the created wallows. Rival bull elk battle clashtheir antler racks in jousting matches for possession of a female harem (cows). A bull may mate withas many as 60 cows, but the average harem contains only a dozen or so cows at a time.

Cows usually breed when they are two and a half years old. After the fall mating season, thegestation period for the cows is 255 to 275 days. Typically, one 25- to 40-pound calf is born in Juneor July. During the first month, the calf is completely dependent on milk and may suckle for up tonine months.

Elk are mainly found in western North America. In the U.S., the largest numbers are in Colorado,Montana, Washington, and Wyoming with lesser populations in California, Idaho, Nevada, Utah,Arizona, and New Mexico. Recently, elk have been reintroduced into many areas in the east,Midwest, and south including parts of Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oklahoma,Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Virginia. The largest herds are still found in Yellowstone Park, onMontana’s Sun River, and in Washington’s Olympic Mountains.

Many of the larger elk herds in the U.S. and Canada are overpopulated and do not have an adequatewinter range for feeding. Elk die of starvation or from diseases, such as pneumonia and necroticstomatitis (calf diphtheria). Natural enemies of elk include wolves and cougars. Bears and coyoteskill some calves and sick adults.

Surprisingly, a mature elk, even a large antlered bull, has very little defense against an attack froman animal as small as a hundred pound mountain lion. A bull’s antlers, though impressive and lethalin appearance, serve mostly as a jousting tool during fall rutting battles. Actually, an elk’s mass andelongated frame are detriments when attacked by a predator at close range because an elk cannotmove quick enough to avoid a sudden charge, and is not fast enough to outrun the most predatorsin a short distance.

The most lethal defensive tactic of an elk is to stand its ground and flail at its attacker with its hard,sharp-edged hooves. An elk’s forelegs have the ability to deliver a tremendous blow and have beenresponsible for many wounded, maimed, and dead predators that were not fast enough to avoid oneof those slashing hooves. The single most concentrated predation on elk occurs during the late springbirthing season when the cows have their calves. (Naturescapes)

Bear

Black bears or their relatives live on all continents except Africa, Australia, and Antarctica.Approximately 630,000 to 725,000 American black bears live in 42 states. They also inhabit 11


Canadian provinces. Grizzly bears (also known as brown bears) and polar bears also inhabit NorthAmerica. The most common bear in Idaho is the “Ursus americanus” otherwise known as theAmerican black bear. Baby bears are called cubs, female bears are called sows, and male bears arecalled boars.

As many as 20,000 black bears inhabit Idaho. There are about 1,000 black bear in Bonner County,according to estimates. Black bears that live in the western states are often various shades of brownsimilar to grizzly bears.

In Idaho, black bear habitat spreads over 30,000 square miles of forest, mostly north of the SnakeRiver Plain. Less than one-fourth of bear habitat is on private lands. The rest is managed by a varietyof state and federal agencies, including the United States Forest Service, which oversees three-fourths of the bear habitat in Idaho. Idaho’s forests can support 20,000 to 25,000 bears, but the actualpopulation is probably lower than that.

Being able to navigate the forest quietly and unseen helps a bear avoid other bears as it searches forfood. If a young bear accidentally encounters a large adult male who could consider the youngstera competitor, the younger animal must retreat before being detected. If necessary, it can run 30 milesper hour or paddle across a lake.

In the forest, bears rely on their acute hearing and super sense of smell. Their noses perceive smellsmuch fainter than humans can detect. With this super sense of smell, they can detect other animalsthat are nearby, and they can find fruit, insect larvae, and other foods.

Bears can probably see as well as humans. They recognize shapes but not details at a distance, andthey observe moving objects better than stationary objects. Although their night vision is alsoexcellent, bears forage for fruit during the day when they can perceive colors.

In Idaho, where food supplies are limited, bear home ranges tend to be large and have looseboundaries. Generally, male ranges are larger than female ranges. Sometimes male bears will covermore than 50 square miles and will include the ranges of several females. This arrangement ensuresthe male will have a number of females for mating.

Female bears occupy home ranges that average 12 square miles and often overlap with otherfemales. Bears have a definite social system for those times when they congregate around rich foodsources. As with other large and powerful animals, social order allows bears of differing age, sex,and strength to feed closely without erupting into violent battles. (Idaho Public Television)

Mountain Lion

The mountain lion, also known as a cougar, panther, or puma, is a tawny feline with black-tippedears and tail. Although smaller than the jaguar, it is one of North America’s largest cats.


Adult males may be more than eight feet long, from nose to end of tail, and generally weigh 130 to150 pounds. Adult females can be seven feet long and weigh 65 to 90 pounds.

Mountain lion kittens, or cubs, are covered with blackish-brown spots and have dark rings aroundtheir tails—markings that fade as they grow older. At birth, the kittens are blind, weigh a pound orless, and are a foot long. At two weeks, their eyes open. They begin to accompany their mother onforays when they are two months of age.

Mountain lines hunt on the ground and ambush their prey from behind. They are generally nocturnaland solitary hunters. The success of the hunt depends solely on the element of surprise. By playingin the manner of kittens, they perfect their “stalking” technique at an early age. They are classifiedas a “stalking predator” rather than a “pursuit predator” like the wolf. A fatal bite below the base ofthe skull, resulting in a broken neck, is their preferred method of killing prey. Kittens, when theyare old enough, are led from the den to a kill by the mother in order to begin their weaning process.The adult mountain lion may cover the carcass with dirt, leaves, or snow. A mountain lion may feedon one kill for several days. They are generally secretive and solitary.

The sound the lion makes is a terrifying, elongated, piercing scream; which sounds like “the screechof a terrified woman.” They also emit birdlike whistles, which are probably used to communicatewhere they are and instructions between a female and her kittens. One of the great mysteries aboutmountain lions is their fear of barking dogs. It is hypothesized that sometime in the mountain lion’sevolutionary past they were preyed upon by barking animals.

Five hundred years ago, new American settlers feared and misunderstood the mountain lion. Afterall, there were no lions in many of the countries of origin of the settlers. Consequently, they soughtto destroy the cats, and by 1900, the big cats had virtually disappeared from the eastern half of thecontinent. The killing of livestock spurred the Animal Damage Control Act of 1931, which providedmoney and authority to hunt lions. Livestock concerns still fuel the debates between ranchers andanimal protectionists. In the early 1960s, some states dispensed $50 to each person who killed amountain lion. From 1928 to 1973, a minimum of 2,780 mountain lions were killed in Idaho.

In 1920, a rough estimate put the mountain lion population at 600. Field studies in the 1970sestimated a population of more than 2,000 mountain lions. Today’s population estimate ranges from4,000 to 6,000. In Bonner County, experts estimate there are about 140 mountain lions.

A mountain lion’s natural life span is about 12 years in the wild and up to 24 years in captivity.Natural enemies include other large predators such as bears, lions and, wolves. They also fall victimto accidents, disease, road hazards, and humans. (Mortay)

Moose

Moose, called elk in Europe, are the largest member of the deer family. Standing or swimming inlakes and ponds, they feed on many kinds of aquatic plants. Moose are retiring animals andgenerally avoid human contact. However, they can be unpredictable and dangerous. Cows with their


calves are irritable and fiercely protective. Rutting bulls have been known to charge people, horses,or even a car.

Males are much larger than females. A full-grown bull moose (male) weighs from 800 to 1,200pounds. The smaller adult cow (female) is about 2/3 as large (600 to 800 pounds). Moose stand 5to 6.5 feet tall at the shoulder and are 7.5 to 10 feet in length. They have a short tail of approximately2.5 to 3.5 inches.

Moose are easy to recognize by their large size, long dark to reddish brown to black color hair, highhumped shoulders, long pale legs, and a huge, pendulous muzzle. Moose have a large dewlap undertheir throat (called by some a pendant “bell”), and large ears.

A moose eats an average of 44 pounds of wet forage a day, but this amount increases to nearly 60pounds in the spring and 130 pounds daily in the autumn. They feast on plant growth in a lake orswamp. Moose love water lilies and will wade far out into a swampy pond to munch on them. Thenthey often leave the water, to find secluded wooded areas and escape insects, and to browse onplants and trees. Moose sometimes bend a sapling over to nibble its tender upper leaves. In wintermonths, they rely more on their browse of woody plants that includes twigs, buds, and bark ofwillow, balsam, aspen, dogwood, birch, cherry, and virburnum.

The bull carries large palm-like, flattened antlers that grow during the spring and summer, attain fullgrowth by August, and then are shed each winter in December or January. A bull’s antler spread isusually four to five feet wide. The cow moose has no antlers. In breeding season (the fall rut), bothsexes give out a cow-like moo. These vocalizations include the bull’s loud but shorter-length, rising-at-the-end bellow and the cow’s call, which ends in a cough-like moo-agh.

Due to their size, healthy, adult moose have few natural predators. Large brown bears, or grizzlies,are a potential threat. However, the habitation range of bears that size is much smaller than that ofmoose. Black bears and wolves are serious threats to calves and in some areas cause fatal results fora relatively high proportion of offspring, in spite of valiant defensive actions by cows. The mostserious life-threatening disease is called brainworm, a parasite carried by white-tailed deer. Whilethe parasite apparently does not affect deer, it is excreted in their droppings. Organisms feeding ondroppings find their way to browse and are unknowingly consumed by moose. The parasite inflictsusually fatal damage to the moose nervous system.

Moose face an unnatural threat only from human actions. Hunting, loss of habitat, chemicals, andaccidental fires may affect moose populations. (Naturescapes) There are about 1,900 moose inBonner County.

Mountain Goat

Mountain goats are relatively small bovids with compact, short-legged bodies. They have yellowish-white fur, which is long and shaggy in winter and shorter in summer. They also have a beard anddagger-like horns. The males start to shed their coat in June and continue shedding until mid-July;the females do not complete their molt until mid-August. It is possible to tell the age of the mountain


goat by counting the rings on the horns. The first ring forms at the age of 22 to 24 months, and anadditional ring forms each spring. Generally, mountain goats are 50 to 70 inches long with ashoulder height up to 40 inches and weigh approximately 176 to 308 pounds.

Mountain goats live in rocky, mountainous areas above timberline. There natural range includesAlaska’s Yukon, British Columbia, southwest Alberta, parts of Washington, northern Idaho, andnorthwest Montana. They have also been introduced successfully in Oregon, Nevada, Utah,Colorado, Wyoming, and South Dakota. British Columbia’s population is by far the largest atapproximately 100,000. About 30 mountain goats inhabit the steep fringes of Lake Pend Oreillenear Bayview, while it is estimated about 35 live in the Selkirks and another 30 in the Cabinetsabove Clark Fork.

The mountain goat is not a true goat. Its “beard” is not the true chin beard of male goats, but anextension of a throat mane. The mountain goat is active in morning and evening and sometimesduring moonlit nights. Its hooves are well adapted for rocky peaks, with a sharp outer rim that gripsand a rubbery sole that provides traction on steep or smooth surfaces. Traversing peaks and narrowledges at a stately walk or trot, a mountain goat may seem to move across the face of an almost sheercliff. However, individuals have been known to miss their footing and fall to their deaths. On warmdays, the animal will bed on a patch of snow, in a shady spot, or on a mountain ledge. It lives insmall flocks, but tends to be solitary in summer and autumn. In the mating season, the males rub theglands that are behind their horns against trees; they also use urine to mark their territory.

Mountain goats mate mid-November through mid-December and have a gestation period of sixmonths. The sexes herd apart until rutting season. While rival males frequently threaten each other,breeding battles are uncommon, as skulls and horns are relatively fragile.

The kid, usually born on a mountain ledge, can stand and climb shortly after birth. It starts feedingwithin a few days of birth, but weaning is not complete until August or September. The kid remainswith its mother until the next year’s kid is born.

Avalanches and rock slides are the greatest killers of mountain goats, accounting for many moredeaths than predation. Only the golden eagle can attack this species in high mountains, where it maytry to drive a kid over a cliff. Carnivores such as the mountain lion may attack the mountain goatas it descends into a valley, but the goat’s sharp hooves make it dangerous prey. (Mountain Goats)

Bighorn Sheep

Also known as mountain sheep, this heavy-bodied member of the cattle, goat, and sheep family hasa remarkable ability to climb and jump. There are three types of wild sheep found in North America:the grayish brown to pale buff Rocky Mountain sheep, the white Dall sheep of Alaska and westernYukon, and the dark brown to black mountain sheep (also called “stone” sheep) in south-centralYukon to central British Columbia.

In the past, disease, unlimited hunting, and overgrazing of livestock have pushed the bighorn sheepinto a few mountain preserves. The numbers of bighorn sheep continues to shrink; only an estimated20,000 survive in the United States today. Notable herds do still roam the mountain slopes of


Yellowstone and Glacier national parks. Bighorn sheep are found in the mountain ranges of southernCalifornia, Arizona, and New Mexico northward through Idaho and Montana and on into BritishColumbia. None are known to currently exist in Bonner County.

Another contributing factor to the declining numbers in bighorn sheep is inherent in their migrationhabits. Young bighorns follow in the footsteps of their parents, migrating year after year from thesame summer feeding grounds in high mountain tundra to winter grazing grounds in the foothills.Young bighorns learn this migration route as they mature and do not vary from it. They do notdisperse and colonize new areas, as do other animals like white-tailed deer, moose, and bears.Therefore, efforts to transplant bighorn sheep from one location to a different unpopulated area areoften unsuccessful.

Predators of bighorn sheep include cougars, golden eagles, wolves, coyotes, bears, bobcats, andlynx. On cliffs, adult bighorns can easily escape all but the cougars. When they migrate and descendto the foothills, the bighorn’s sure-footedness is no advantage, and they may then fall prey topredators. Golden eagles attack young lambs whenever they find them unprotected. (Eduscapes)

Section 5.4 - Upland Game

Upland Game Birds

Ruffed Grouse

It is the opinion of many hunters that ruffed grouse provide the finest table fare of any upland gamebird. Ruffed grouse do have a small but loyal following, though, and each year yield a respectableharvest.

Ruffed grouse sport different color phases, specifically the color of the band on the tail feathers. Thebest way to tell juveniles from adults is to look at the outer wing primaries. If the outer primariesare growing, indicated by the bluish “quill,” the bird is an adult. If the seventh or eighth primariesare growing, the bird is a juvenile. In addition, if the outer two primaries are rounded and smooth,the bird is an adult. If those feathers are more pointed and frayed, the bird is a juvenile.

However, ruffed grouse live in a more protected environment than other upland game birds. Theydon’t fly as much, and when they do fly, they don’t fly as far. Since ruffed grouse don’t use theirwings as much as other upland game birds, their wing tips may not show much wear, making it moredifficult to differentiate young and adult birds whose primary wing feathers are no longer growing.(Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center)

Wild Turkey

In 1961, the Idaho Department of Fish and Game made good use of Wildlife Restoration fundingto embark on a stocking program to establish the wild turkey in suitable habitat in the Gem State.Overall, three turkey subspecies have been introduced.


The Merriam's wild turkey was the first subspecies released in the state, and its introduction hasbeen the most successful. Populations increased rapidly during the 1960s, stabilized at lowerlevels in the 1970s and have increased dramatically since the early 1980s. This bird is widelydistributed in the mountains of the Panhandle, Clearwater and Southwest regions. The RioGrande and Eastern wild turkey subspecies also have been introduced in several areas, but arepresent in smaller numbers (Idaho Fish and Game).

Estimates place the number of wild turkeys at about 2,000 in Bonner County.

Gobblers exhibit bright red wattles (engorged skin below the chin) and light blue cheek patches.When a gobbler reacts to an imitation call from a hen turkey, fanning its tail and breaking into astupefied dance.

The breeding colors and actions of spring are not so obvious as fall arrives. Fall turkeys are oftenfound in flocks. The biggest birds in a flock are generally adult males.

Breast feathers on male turkeys, both juveniles and adults, are all black year round, with oneexception. In the fall, if a juvenile male turkey hasn’t gone through postjuvenal molt, its breastfeathers may resemble those of a female (black with a buff/tan outer edge).

Breast feathers on female turkeys have a tan or light brown band on the outside edge, and therest of the feather is not as dark as that of a male. Combined with the rest of the feathers on thebreast, a female turkey appears lighter in color than a male.

Adult male turkeys generally exhibit a long “beard” growing out of the center of their chest. Thebeard on a juvenile male is extremely short. The beard on a juvenile male will stick out slightlyby its first spring. Female turkeys generally don’t have beards, but some do. (Northern PrairieWildlife Research Center)

Furbearers

Technically, the term furbearer includes all mammals, all of which, by definition possess someform of hair. Typically, however, wildlife managers use the term to identify mammal species thathave traditionally been trapped or hunted for their fur. Furbearers are a diverse group, includingboth carnivores (meat eating predators) and rodents (gnawing mammals). Most are adaptablespecies ranging over large geographic areas. A few animals that are normally hunted or trapped

primarily for their meat or to reduce agricultural or property damage may also be consideredfurbearers if their skins are marketed.

Most furbearers possess two layers of fur: a dense, soft underfur that provides insulation andwater-repellent qualities; and an outer layer of longer, glossy guard hairs that grow through theunderfur, protecting it from matting and abrasion. A fur is said to be prime when the guard hairsare at their maximum length and the underfur is at its maximum thickness. Fur generally


becomes prime in midwinter when the coat is fresh and fully grown; the timing for primenessmay vary somewhat depending on species, location (latitude), and elevation.

Furbearing animals include:

• badger• beaver• bobcat• chinchilla• coyote• fisher• fox, red and gray• lynx• marten • mink

• muskrat• nutria• opossum• otter• raccoon• skunk, striped and spotted• weasel, long- and short-tail• wolf, gray and red• wolverine

(FurBearers Unlimited; Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee)

Predators

Predators are wild animals that hunt, or prey on, other animals for their own food. Wolves,mountain lions, hawks, and ferrets are all predators. Because these animals are meat eaters, theyare also called carnivores. Some predators, such as coyotes and bears, are also scavengers,meaning they will eat the carcasses of animals that they did not hunt themselves.

Some predators are bigger than a human and others are merely the size of a house cat. All ofthese native wildlife have special needs in order to survive. Most need large areas of land to meetall of their food and habitat requirements.

The fact that predators regularly prey on herbivores or plant-eating animals, such as deer and elk,means that they play a critical role in their ecosystem. If predators were eliminated, those planteaters could literally alter the vegetation to the point where it is no longer suitable habitat forwildlife species that once lived there.

Predators are not always successful hunters so they target the easiest prey. Most of the time,predators will choose the weak, old, and sick animals in a population, leaving the healthy androbust individuals to reproduce offspring.

Predation accounts for a small fraction of livestock loss, with the majority of livestock deathsbeing due to disease and harsh weather. In 1995 alone, 100,000 cattle were lost to weather,disease, and calving problems the Northern Rockies. From 1987 to 2000, 149 cows and 356sheep were confirmed lost to wolves.

Predators are facing more threats today than ever before. Increased resource extraction, rampantdevelopment, and unregulated motorized recreation are all modern day threats to these highlysensitive animals. (Predator Conservation Alliance)


Section 5.5 - Non-game Wildlife

More than 80 percent of Idaho’s wild creatures are classified as “non-game” wildlife (419species in all), including songbirds, waterbirds, raptors, small mammals, reptiles andamphibians, and threatened and endangered wildlife. Non-game wildlife are animals that are notnormally hunted, fished or trapped. (Idaho Fish & Game Web site)

Bird species include the following:

• American bittern • American kestral • bald eagle • black-capped chickadee • black-crowned night heron • great blue heron • hawks • Lewis woodpecker • long-billed curlew • northern harrier • osprey • owls • peregrine falcon

• pied-billed grebes • prairie falcon • red-tailed hawk • sandhill crane • short-eared owl • spotted sandpiper • Swainson’s hawk • trumpeter swan • warblers • western meadowlark• woodpeckers• yellow warbler

Other species include those associated with riparian and wetland-dependent songbirds.(Bonneville Power Administration; Idaho Fish & Game, Nongame Wildlife Program)


Section 5.6 - Special Status Species

The Idaho Conservation Data Center (CDC) lists 33 “special status”vertebrate species that occurin Bonner County. The species listed represent occurrences reported to the CDC, but do notrepresent potential distributions. Table 5-2 in the Appendix lists most of the special statusspecies of Bonner County, as of January 2000. Included in the 33 species, but not shown on thetable, are the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos), which is federally listed as endangered and is discussedelsewhere in this chapter, and the gray wolf (Canis lupus), which is also federally listed asendangered for northern Idaho (north of Interstate-90). The special status species list is subject tochange. (Idaho Conservation Data)


Present distribution of the Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou ©1996 U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Boise, Idaho

Caribou

StatusThe Selkirk Mountain Woodland caribou(Rangifer tarandus caribou) was listed asendangered by the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService on February 29, 1984. Endangeredspecies are those that are in danger ofextinction throughout a significant portionof their range. It is unlawful to kill, harm, orharass endangered species.

Species InformationWoodland caribou are medium-sizedmembers of the deer family with malesapproaching 400 to 500 pounds and females300 pounds. They stand about four feet highat the shoulder. Caribou are distinguishedfrom other members of the deer family bytheir large hooves, broad muzzles, and thedistinctive antlers both sexes developannually. Males possess the larger antlerswith one or two brow tines called “shovels”that extend over the face. Males drop theirantlers during November to April andfemales May to June. The coats of woodlandcaribou are a chocolate brown inmidsummer to a grayish-tan during spring.Adult males are darker colored and developa thick, white mane on their necks during the rut. These caribou have a low reproductive rate; acow will give birth to a single, dark brown calf in June. Females generally live 10 to 15 yearsand males 8 to 12 years in unhunted populations.

DistributionSince the 1960s the last remaining woodland caribou population in the United States hasrestricted its range to the Selkirk Mountains of northeastern Washington, northern Idaho, andsoutheastern British Columbia. By the early 1980s, this population had dwindled to 25 to 30individuals in the Stagleap Provincial Park, British Columbia. Additional caribou weretransplanted into Idaho in 1987, 1988, and 1990. In April 1996, 19 caribou were transplantedinto northeast Washington. Currently, approximately 60 to 70 caribou occur in the Selkirkecosystem.

There have been sightings of caribou in Bonner County in the past, but none have been reportedin Bonner County in the past five years. Earlier sightings were of radio-marked caribou from anIdaho Fish & Game transplant effort from 1987 to 1990 and may have been “exploratory”


movements after their release. Caribou are thought to now range as far south as the Upper PackRiver area of Gunsight Peak and the McCormick Creek and McCormick Ridge area, which isabout 6 miles north of the Bonner County line. If the caribou populations increase, they couldexpand their range into the northern portion of Bonner County. Signs of expansion of the rangehave not been detected. (Wakkinen)

HabitatDuring the winter months, caribou inhabit high elevation spruce and sub-alpine fir forests wherethey feed primarily on lichens draped from trees. During the short, cool summers, cariboudescend to lower timbered slopes, spruce bogs and meadows, still usually above 5,000 feet.Their primary summer foods are grasses, sedges, flowering plants, shrubs, and deciduous leaves.The Selkirk Mountain population is typically found above 4,000 feet elevation in Englemannspruce/subalpine fir and western red cedar/western hemlock forest types.

Reasons for DeclineSelkirk Mountain woodland caribou are threatened by habitat loss (due to fires and logging),predation, and excessive mortality from poaching. Populations grow slowly because of females’relatively late maturity.

Recovery EffortsBetween 1987 and 1990, 60 woodland caribou were moved to northern Idaho from BritishColumbia to help bolster the existing remnant herd. All translocated animals were radio-collaredand have been monitored since their release. Annual aerial winter surveys have also beenconducted to monitor the Selkirk ecosystem population. Transplanted caribou have experiencedrelatively high mortality levels. Predation has been an important factor in cases of knownmortalities; however, the cause of death in many cases is unknown. (Idaho Fish & Game Website)

Current Recovery NeedsManagement of approximately 443,000 acres of habitat is needed to support a self-sustainingcaribou population. Access management, public education, hunter education, and lawenforcement are important recovery activities. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1994)


Present Distribution of Grizzly Bears in the Northwest. © 1996 U.S.

Grizzly Bear

Status

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servicelisted the grizzly bear as a threatenedspecies on July 28, 1975. Threatenedspecies are those likely to become anendangered species within theforeseeable future throughout all or asignificant portion of its range.

Species Information

This bear gets its grizzled appearancefrom long, silver-tipped guard hairsabove a brownish coat that can range inshade from blond to black. Ursus arctoshave long, light-colored foreclaws (four

inches long or longer), a hump between their high shoulders, and dish-shaped faces. An adultfemale weighs in at 250 to 350 pounds, while a male reaches 400 to 600 pounds. In Idaho,grizzlies breed from May through July, with most activity in June. They hibernate fromNovember through April. Young born in January during hibernation nurse for almost one year.Females mature at age 4 to 6 and have one to four cubs (usually two) every third year thereafter.Embryos do not start to grow until hibernation begins. Cubs usually stay with their mother fortwo years, then strike out to establish their own home range. Grizzly bears require a large areafor movement and food searches. The bear is an omnivore that feeds on berries, whitebark pinenuts, dead animals, bulbs, roots, grasses, and insects.

Historical DistributionThe grizzly bear used to range over most of North America, from Mexico to the Arctic Ocean.The population now occupies only two percent of their original range in the lower 48 states.

Present DistributionIdaho has two remaining populations of grizzly bears: the Selkirk Mountains of northern Idahoand northwestern Washington, and the Greater Yellowstone population. The Selkirk recoveryzone extends into the wilderness areas of Bonner County north of Priest Lake and northeast ofLake Pend Oreille.

Reasons for DeclineSeen as a threat to human life and livestock, grizzlies were almost wiped out in the lower 48states by the 1930s. Habitat loss and human-related mortalities have combined with the bear’slow reproductive rate to keep their numbers small. Since the threatened species listing in 1975,grizzly bear numbers have declined in Idaho. Habitat has declined in quality in eastern Idaho forexample, primarily because of increased human access to areas used by grizzly bears. Most


people access these areas by roads built for natural resource management activities. When peoplecome in contact with grizzly bears in the lower 48 states it usually results in negativeconsequences for the bears.

Current Recovery NeedsActions are needed to minimize sources of human-bear conflict, limit habitat loss or degradation,and manage the existing population for increased recovery and survival. These efforts arecoordinated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Missoula, Montana.

Grizzly bear research began in the Selkirks in 1983 when the Department, in cooperation withthe Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, USFWS, USFS, and British ColumbiaMinistry of Environment began trapping, radio-collaring, and monitoring grizzly bears. (IdahoFish & Game)

Thirty-eight grizzly bears have been trapped and monitored since 1983. Human-caused mortalityappears to be the limiting factor to population recovery. Access management, restrictions onblack bear hunting techniques, and information and education programs have been used in anattempt to reduce mortalities. A recent grizzly bear conservation strategy enacted in the BritishColumbia portion of the ecosystem may further benefit grizzly bear management in the Selkirks.The population appears to be stable, with recent evidence of some expansion of its range.Department staff continues to monitor the remaining radio-collared bears.

Future goals include refining access management standards, developing ways to estimatepopulation trends, and continuing the information/education program in an effort to reduce andeliminate human-caused mortalities. (Idaho Fish & Game Web site; U.S. Fish and WildlifeService, 1993)

Bald Eagle

Prior to the settling of the first Europeans in North America, wildlife experts estimate about one-quarter to one-half million bald eagles populated the continent. By the early 1960s, thepopulation was so decimated that only about 417 nesting pairs of bald eagles were counted in thelower 48 states. The population was devastated by hunting, habitat changes, loss of prey, andpesticides (particularly DDT). The bald eagle was listed as endangered in 1978. A bald eaglerecovery program, which focused on habitat protection, a DDT ban, and other management andprotection activities, was launched with the aid of the Endangered Species Act and other federallaws. These efforts have resulted in a doubling of the eagle population every seven or eight yearsover the past 30 years. The bald eagle population in the lower 48 states is now estimated at morethan 5,748 pairs, prompting the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to propose taking the eagle off theendangered species list. The bald eagle status was reclassified as “threatened” in 1995. Recoverygoals have been met or exceeded on a range-wide basis, according to U.S. Fish & Wildlife. Theeagles will still be protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and Migratory BirdTreaty Act. (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Web site)

Both nesting and wintering bald eagles are common around Lake Pend Oreille. Bald eagles arecommonly observed perching and feeding along the shorelines of Lake Pend Oreille and the


Pend Oreille River, the Clark Fork and Pack River deltas, and four islands in Lake Pend Oreille.(Bonneville Power Administration)

Lake Pend Oreille is an important wintering area for bald eagles migrating south from Canada.The birds begin arriving in late October to feed on spawned-out kokanee. Their numbers peakgenerally in late November to early December and decline through the end of March. Peaknumbers can exceed 300 bald eagles. (Cole and Hanna)

Three bald eagle roost sites, located at East Bottle Bay, Warren Island, and Echo Bay, typicallycontain from 20 to 50 birds per night during the winter. A prominent feeding site for bald eaglesis located at the southern end of Lake Pend Oreille at the mouth of Gold Creek during kokaneesalmon spawning (Bonneville Power Administration). During winter months, bald eagles gatherat the outskirts of Sandpoint to feast on coots from Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River.

Bald eagle nesting territories are included on the Critical Wildlife Habitat map included in theAppendix.

Bald eagle nests had disappeared from Bonner County until 1978, when a nest was discovered atSheepherder Point on Lake Pend Oreille, 5 miles northwest of the City of Clark Fork, thatproduced three eaglets. The nest is no longer active. (Active nests are those occupied byincubating adults.) A second nest that is still active today was discovered in 1982 at Fisherman’sIsland, just west of the Sunnyside Peninsula on Lake Pend Oreille. By 1984, there were fouractive bald eagle nests in Bonner County – all on Lake Pend Oreille. Two more nests were addedin 1988 for a total of six active nests. In 1992, four active bald eagle nesting territories werecounted in Bonner County. From those four nests, four eaglets were raised to flight stage(fledged). In 1999, there were 13 active nesting territories in Bonner County, producing 15eaglets to flight stage. (Cole, 2000)

Section 5.7 - General Habitat

Fish and wildlife habitats in Bonner County are being lost to development at an acceleratingpace. Many of the sites that are of most value to fish and wildlife are also highly attractive torural developers. Some wildlife species (such as crows, ravens, starlings, and cowbirds) maybenefit by rural residential development. However, many highly valued fish and wildlife speciesare sensitive to disturbance and habitat alteration associated with rural developments. (IdahoFish & Game Web site)

Terrestrial and avian wildlife responses to wildland development are highly variable, makingdetermination of reasonable and effective mitigation difficult. While any one developmentproposal will have limited impacts on wildlife, those impacts will add cumulatively to impactsassociated with past and future developments to ultimately reduce the capacity of the County tosupport many wildlife species. Some species (such as elk and bald eagles) are highly sensitive todisturbance, while other species (such as white-tailed deer) display considerable adaptability. Tofurther complicate anticipated responses by wildlife, research has shown that deer, elk, manyspecies of waterfowl, nesting and foraging bald eagles, and nesting great blue herons canhabituate to certain human activities. Wildlife habituation may occur when human activities are


predictable and stationary (Cassirer), repeated and non-threatening (Vos), partially or whollyconcealed by vegetation (Stalmaster), and may depend on the degree of human-causedpersecution in the area (Fraser). For example, wintering waterfowl, nesting Canada geese, andbald eagles appear to tolerate nearby highway traffic between Sagle and Sandpoint. In contrast tohabituation, wildlife may become more sensitive with repeated disturbance (Hume; Fraser;Kuck; Cassirer), ultimately resulting in displacement from preferred habitat (Kuck; Korschgen).Generally, wildlife appear to be more sensitive to disturbance by people on foot, or in boats, thanin vehicles (U. S. Fish Wildlife Service, 1986; Holmes; Klein).

Section 5.8 - Critical Habitat

Areas in Bonner County known to be most important to the long-term health of wildlifepopulations have been identified and shown on the “Critical Wildlife Habitat, Bonner County,Idaho,” map found in the Appendix. The map was developed by Bonner County using theresearch and data provided by Idaho Fish & Game Department. There are 20 categories ofcritical habitat shown: • bald eagle communal roost, foraging, and nesting• black tern nesting• bull trout• cutthroat trout• elk calving and wintering• flammulated owl• goshawk nesting• great blue heron rookery• grizzly fall and spring range• harlequin duck stream• moose range • mule deer wintering• waterfowl management, production, and wintering• white-tailed deer wintering

These sites, if developed, would likely reduce the capacity of the area to support the impactedspecies. For example, white-tailed deer occupy most areas below 3,000 feet elevation duringwinter. However, the mapped white-tailed deer winter range includes only those sites that areknown to sustain deer during the most severe winter conditions. Virtually all riparian areas arevaluable to a very large number of wildlife species, but only those that support rare and sensitivespecies such as bull trout and harlequin ducks, or are in critical habitat, are delineated. Habitatuse by wildlife will change over time, consequently the map will require periodic updating.(Idaho Fish & Game Web site)

The following are potential rural development impacts and recommended mitigation strategiesfor critical wildlife habitats in Bonner County.

White-tailed Deer and Mule Deer Winter Range


The impacts of rural development on white-tailed deer are magnified because developmentusually occurs in the small percentage (as little as five percent) of the land base that constituteswinter range. Response to housing developments can include reduced use of the developed areaby deer (Vogel). Development impacts include removal of forest canopy (important inintercepting and holding snow) and hiding cover, and increased human-related disturbances suchas free-ranging dogs, snowmobiling, and cross-country skiing. In the Coeur d’Alene Riverdrainage, deer/dog incidents occurred most often in February and March, and 12 of 39 recordedencounters ended in the death of the deer (Lowry). In addition to direct mortality, harassment ofwhite-tailed deer during the winter stress period may predispose animals to other forms ofmortality such as starvation (Peek). In Colorado, humans and dogs interfered daily with deer 328to 2,625 feet from the nearest residential units at an important migration site (Reed). In 1984,Peek noted that white-tailed deer frequently coexist with housing where sufficient cover hasbeen maintained; however, free-ranging dogs can virtually preclude the presence of deer. Habitatlosses associated with rural development tend to be permanent. Consequently, impactscompound as development proceeds. While white-tailed deer occur in most areas below 3,000feet elevation in winter, only those sites that are known to be important winter range weremapped for land use planning.

Potential Impacts

• Human-caused disturbance.• Displacement from otherwise suitable habitat.• Habitat degradation (such as loss of cover or forage, or removal of forest canopy in

winter range).• Direct and indirect mortality because of free-ranging dogs.


• Cluster building sites so as to maximize contiguous open space.• Maintain large lot sizes (five acres suggested minimum lot size).• Maintain buffers of natural vegetation along streams, seeps, wet areas, and other sites

likely to be used by wildlife as travel corridors (50 feet suggested). • Maintain a cover-to-opening ratio of 80:20 where possible.• Maintain 70 percent canopy in forested sites.• Retain screening vegetation along access roads.• Require that pets be kenneled, leashed, kept indoors, or otherwise restrained from

chasing and/or disturbing wildlife.

Elk Winter Range and Calving Habitat

Elk are much less tolerant of human-caused disturbance than white-tailed deer. For example,logging activities may displace elk within 1,641 to 3,281 feet of the disturbance (Edge). Elk mayreturn after the disturbance has ceased; however, a serious consequence of persistent disturbancecan be voluntary withdrawal from available habitat (Kuck; Cassirer). Impacts to elk associatedwith disturbance may be somewhat reduced if the disturbance is separated from elk habitat by atopographic barrier such as a ridge, and if security cover is maintained.


Potential Impacts

• Human-caused disturbance.• Displacement from otherwise suitable habitat.• Habitat degradation (such as a loss of cover or forage, or removal of forest canopy in

winter range).


• Cluster building sites so as to maximize contiguous open space.• Maintain lot sizes as large as possible (20 or more acres per lot suggested).• Maintain buffers of natural vegetation along streams, seeps, wet areas, and other sites

likely to be used by wildlife as travel corridors (50 feet suggested).• Maintain a cover-to-opening ratio of 80:20.• Maintain 70 percent canopy in forested sites.• Retain screening vegetation along access roads.• Require that pets be kenneled, leashed, kept indoors, or otherwise restrained from


Moose Habitat

Moose habitat is widely dispersed in Bonner County. However, aquatic sites are well known asimportant moose habitat. In 1985, Matchett recommended that coniferous cover be maintainednear aquatic sites, and disturbance minimized.

Potential Impacts

• Removal of hiding cover.• Human-caused disturbance.• Direct calf mortality due to free-ranging dogs.


• Cluster building sites so as to maximize contiguous open space.• Maintain naturally vegetated buffer from aquatic sites (50 feet suggested).• Retain concealing vegetation within the buffer and along access roads.• Maintain lot sizes as large as possible.• Require that pets be kenneled, leashed, kept indoors, or otherwise restrained from


Waterfowl Production, Migration, and Wintering Areas

Human disturbance of waterfowl can result in reduced numbers of breeding pairs, increased nestdesertions, reduced hatching success, direct duckling and gosling mortality, increased energy


expenditure (depleting fat reserves during migration and winter), and changed foraging andmigration patterns (Korschgen). In Wisconsin, the activities of shore residents, anglers, andboaters on lakes bordered by homes discouraged breeding ducks from using otherwise suitablehabitat. Aerial census revealed many lakes with excellent stands of submerged aquatic plants,but without ducks. For Canada geese, human disturbance is most important during nesting whengeese may abandon nests at disturbed sites (Geis; Craighead). People, cats, and dogs may causedirect mortality of ducklings and goslings (Figley). In Wisconsin, rural cat numbers equaled orgreatly exceeded the density of native predators (Coleman). Predation by free-ranging cats isparticularly severe because cat numbers are kept artificially high by supplemental feeding;protecting them from normal numerical and functional responses to changes in prey densities.During migration and winter, human disturbance can deny waterfowl access to preferredforaging areas. Diving ducks such as lesser scaup, canvasback, and goldeneye appear to beespecially sensitive to human disturbance (Cronan; Hume; Korschgen). For example, goldeneyeoften flew when people on shore approached to within 328 to 656 feet (Hume), while urbanmallards flew up to 197 feet from an approaching boat (Figley). In 1992, Korschgen andDahlgren suggested establishing screened buffers around important waterfowl roosting andfeeding areas and restricting access by dogs and other pets during nesting and brood-rearingperiods.

Potential Impacts

• Increased energetic costs associated with flight.• Lower productivity.• Direct mortality due to free-ranging pets.• Displacement from otherwise suitable breeding, migration, and/or winter habitat.


• Maintain a disturbance buffer near production, migration, and wintering areas (300 feetsuggested).

• Maintain natural vegetation along lake, river, or wetland shorelines.• Require that pets be kenneled, leashed, kept indoors, or otherwise restrained from

chasing and/or disturbing wildlife.• Limit boat dock establishment in important production, migration, and winter habitat

areas.

Bald Eagle Nesting and Foraging Areas

The sensitivity of nesting and foraging bald eagles to human disturbance is well documented;however, nesting and foraging eagles have also been known to habituate to certain humanactivities. Bald eagle tolerance of human activity may be increased if the activity is partially orwholly obscured by vegetation (Stalmaster), and may also depend on the degree of human-caused persecution in the area (Fraser). Individual eagles may react differently to disturbance,necessitating the development of individual nest or roost management plans based on location ofnest trees, perch trees, flight paths, stand characteristics, and known individual tolerances(Anthony; U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986). While established nesting pairs may tolerate


human developments, there is concern that, upon the death of the existing pair, new nestingterritories may not be established in developed areas, resulting in long-term loss of bald eaglenesting habitat (Fraser). There are two nests on Pend Oreille Lake where eagles display toleranceof nearby human activities. In each site, most human activities appear to be localized, repetitive,non-threatening, and predictable. Another bald eagle nest may have been displaced by homebuilding nearby. At this site the bald eagles built a new nest at about the same time that a largeresidence was built very near to the nest. The eagles were noted to begin incubation that year;however, subsequent observation never verified eaglets. The next year, a new nest site wasestablished approximately one-half mile away. As developments occupy more and more areas,there will be fewer and fewer undeveloped sites for bald eagles to nest.

Several authors have proposed establishment of buffers near nesting, foraging, and roosting sitesto protect important bald eagle habitat. Based on flushing distances, Stalmaster and Newmansuggested 246 to 328 feet wide screened buffers, and 820 feet wide buffers in open habitat toprotect winter foraging sites. Fraser recommended 1,640 feet wide inviolate buffers around nestsites, and Paige suggested a one-quarter mile radius nest site area where permanent structuresshould not be constructed. Foraging sites for bald eagles are often important habitat forwaterfowl and other wildlife. Consequently, buffers established for bald eagles will benefit manywildlife species.

Most of the Pend Oreille Lake and River shoreline is important bald eagle perching and foraginghabitat. However, only the most critical sites were mapped for planning purposes. The followingrecommendations are suggested for implementation at mapped locations.

Potential Impacts

• Human-caused disturbance in wintering or nesting habitat.• Degradation of potentially suitable nesting and winter habitat.• Nest abandonment.• Increased energetic costs associated with increased flight.• Displacement from otherwise suitable habitat.• Reduced potential for population recovery.


• Maintain a disturbance buffer around nest sites (1,380 feet suggested).• Retain screening vegetation around building sites within one-half mile of the nest.• Maintain large trees and snags within the nesting stand, near perch and roost sites, and

along shorelines.• Maintain a screened disturbance buffer of at least 300 feet from perch sites, roost sites,

and from bald eagle foraging sites.• Develop individual management plans for nests and roosts that identify foraging patterns,

and important perch and roost sites.• Educate landowners on the importance of low disturbance and habitat features, such as

perch trees.


Great Blue Heron Rookeries

The great blue heron is one of the largest American birds, measuring about four feet in height,with a 6-foot wing span. The birds frequent shallow ponds, marshes, and the shores of lakes andrivers. Anywhere from a few to 50 or more birds may nest together in a colony (Idaho Fish &Game, 1987). Great blue herons are very sensitive to human disturbance, but particularly so atrookery sites. Vos found that great blue heron flushing distance at rookeries decreased as thenesting season progressed, and that herons habituated to fishermen boating past heronries asopposed to unexpected disturbances such as people walking below the nest trees or motorcyclespassing the heronry. Trost noted that houses have been built at an increasing pace in north Idaho,and that these new developments might strongly affect heron nesting. Vos suggested a bufferaround nest sites of 820 feet on land and 492 feet on water, based on flushing distances. Trostlocated four heronries around Lake Pend Oreille; however, one was not occupied in 1995. Afourth Bonner County heronry was located on Priest River near White Tail Butte.

Potential Impacts

• Nest failures due to disturbance.• Nest abandonment.• Removal of nest trees.


• Protect nesting stands and trees.• Maintain a disturbance buffer around rookery sites (490 feet suggested).• Educate landowners on the importance of low disturbance and nest trees.

Harlequin Duck Breeding Streams

Harlequin ducks are listed as a Species of Special Concern by the Idaho Department of Fish andGame, as a Sensitive Species by Regions 1 and 4 of the U. S. Forest Service, and recently as aCategory 2 species by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Harlequin ducks have similar habitatrequirements to those described for bull trout, and are very sensitive to human disturbance(Cassirer). Harlequin ducks often use the same streams used by bull trout. Selected Idahostreams were monitored during breeding season to assess the harlequin duck population. Theminimum northern Idaho harlequin duck population was estimated at 36 to 52 pairs (1999); notsignificantly different from the 1995 estimate of 42 pairs (Idaho Fish & Game Web site).

Potential Impacts

• Water quality degradation.• Removal of cedar/hemlock forest along breeding streams.• Human-caused disturbance.



• Maintain a naturally-vegetated buffer, including old and mature trees, along breedingstreams (300 feet suggested).

• Require pets to be leashed, kenneled, kept indoors, or otherwise restrained from chasingand/or disturbing wildlife.

• Avoid activities that will disturb harlequin ducks during the nesting and brood-rearingperiod (mid-April to early September).

Grizzly Bear Spring and Fall Range

Grizzly bears are a federally listed Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Themajor threat to grizzly bears is human/bear conflict resulting in destruction of the bear. Ideally,no development would occur in grizzly bear habitat.

Potential Impacts

• Human-caused disturbance.• Displacement from important habitat.• Human/bear conflict resulting in direct bear mortality.


• Maintain screened or sight distance disturbance buffers around critical spring range sites.• Prohibit human-associated bear attractants such as unsecured garbage, compost piles,

uncleaned barbeque grills, and fruit tree establishment.

Western Grebe Nesting Area

Western grebes (not included on Bonner County critical habitat map) nest on floating mats ofaquatic vegetation, which they construct over water. Consequently, the nests are vulnerable towave action from storms or boats. Because western grebes nest colonially in Denton Slough,disturbance may impact many nests at once. Trost noted that human activities may displaceadults so that eggs or young birds can become chilled and exposed to predators such as gulls orravens.

Potential Impacts

• Nest destruction by wave action from boats.• Human-caused disturbance.• Human-induced nest failure.• Displacement of the nesting colony.


• Establish a “no wake” regulation in Denton Slough.


• Prohibit additional boat dock/ramp establishment in Denton Slough.• Educate boaters on the importance of low disturbance in Denton Slough.

Black Tern Nesting Areas

Black terns are robin-sized birds that concentrate in the Northwest and Canada during breedingseason. The black tern is “black” only in the summer; its head and underparts are white in otherseasons and the wings and back are always slate gray (Idaho Fish & Game, 1987). Black ternnesting colonies are rare in northern Idaho, and the species was listed as a Category 2 species bythe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Consequently, wetlands that are known to support black ternswere designated on the Bonner County wildlife map. Black terns nest on a floating mat ofvegetation, in cattails, or other emergent vegetation. However, because potential nesting sites didnot receive boat traffic, the only major threat would be loss of wetland habitat through drainageor fill.

Potential Impacts

• Destruction or degradation of wetland habitat such as through drainage or wetland filling.


• Protect wetland habitat from drainage or filling.

Goshawk Nesting Area and Flammulated Owl Nesting Habitat

Goshawks are an Idaho Fish & Game Department Species of Special Concern, a U.S. ForestService and Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species, and a U.S. Fish and WildlifeService “Watch” species. Due to the protected status of the goshawk and the increasing concernabout the population status in parts of its range, researchers are attempting to gain a betterunderstanding of the goshawk habitat characteristics and how land management activities mayaffect the habitat (Idaho Fish & Game Web site). The goshawk is a crow-sized bird and thelargest North American accipiter. Potential impacts include disturbance and loss of mature oldgrowth forest habitat. Goshawk nesting areas are located in the Priest Lake drainage (Hoelscher).

Flammulated owls are an Idaho Department of Fish and Game Species of Special Concern, and aU. S. Forest Service Sensitive Species. The flammulated owl is a small, (robin-sized) dark-eyedowl with short ear tufts, which is found in mountains and canyons. Tim Layser (U. S. ForestService Wildlife Biologist, Priest Lake District) mapped important sites for these species in thePriest Lake drainage. However, mapping of habitat for these species is incomplete for other areasin Bonner County. Potential impacts include loss of forested habitat for flammulated owls.

Potential Impacts to Goshawks

• Nest abandonment due to disturbance during the nesting period.


• Loss of nesting and foraging habitat due to removal of mature trees.

Suggested Mitigation for Goshawks

• Retain a two-acre buffer around the nest tree.• Retain at least 60 percent canopy cover in a 30-acre parcel around the nest, and up to 180

acres if possible.

Potential Impacts to Flammulated Owls

• Loss of snags and dense stands of mature timber that provide nesting habitat

Suggested Mitigation for Flammulated Owls

• Encourage retention of large snags and mature stands of timber, particularly above 3,000feet.

• Avoid disturbance from March through September.

Section 5.9 - Wildlife Disturbance Due To Urban Sprawl

The following analysis was provided by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Deer

Urban sprawl was particularly acute in the mountainous West where suburban subdivisions oftenare located in foothill areas that formerly provided crucial wintering ranges. Uncontrolled dogscomprise another problem associated with encroachment of suburbia on big-game habitat. Wherethese animals are allowed to roam freely, they may inflict losses on local deer populations.(Wolfe)

Predation by dogs is considered a serious problem in many areas of the West where deer areforced to concentrate on winter range with deep snow that restricts their mobility (numeroussource citations). It seems reasonable to speculate that harassment by dogs can constitute anintolerable added stress to deer in severe winters. Distribution of privately owned rural land inthe West is such that mountain home developments frequently pre-empt critical deer migrationroutes and wintering areas. In Colorado for example, human and dog interference duringmigration periods and at a heavily used migration site, took place daily at distances between 328and 2,625 feet from the nearest residential units. (Reed)

Generally, such residential and recreational developments affect only limited areas of mule andblack-tailed deer winter range in western states. The amount of deer habitat involved would notbe expected to result in widespread decline of deer populations. Locally, however, residential,recreational, and associated developments may eliminate deer from limited areas. The compositeeffects of these local developments throughout mule deer range may exact a significant toll onthe number and distribution of deer. (Reed)


When encroachment of housing occurs, harassment by dogs can become a serious problem.While white-tailed deer frequently co-exist with housing developments where sufficient coverhas been retained, dogs that are allowed to run loose can virtually preclude the presence of deer.(Peek)

In addition to direct mortality, harassment of white-taileds during the stresses of winter maypredispose animals to other forms of mortality. Winter ranges are critical to the welfare of white-taileds in the Northern Rocky Mountains region. Because they usually are located along riverbottoms and lake shores, these ranges are especially vulnerable to encroachment by humanactivity, and their loss tends to be permanent. (Peek)

For example, in the Coeur d’Alene River drainage of northern Idaho, communities andresidences are interspersed throughout the deer winter range, and harassment of deer by dogs hasincreased as homes are built in forested areas where deer formerly had little disturbance. Most ofthe observed chases occurred in winter, and most of the kills were in late winter. Dogs have anadvantage over deer when running over crusted snow–deer break through the crust while dogstravel on top of it. During severe winters, this can be especially critical if a deer must spend timeand energy evading dogs when it needs to be foraging for food and expending as little energy aspossible. Of 39 deer/dog encounters observed, 12 ended in the death of the deer, two deer werecrippled and escaped, two deer were chased into a river but escaped, and 23 deer escaped.Twenty-four (62 percent) of the 39 deer/dog incidents occurred in February or March, and all 12deer deaths occurred in those two months. (Lowry)

Loss of habitat is especially critical when one considers that areas suitable for winter range mayconstitute as little as five percent of the total land base. Subdivisions in rural areas also reducehabitat, since humans, like white-tailed deer, often prefer property overlooking a lake or riverwith a southern exposure. The effect of this type of habitat loss is often compounded by anincrease in human-related activities, such as snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, andunrestrained dogs. (Jageman)

The most important response was decreased use of the developed area by deer. Other responsesincluded a shift in species composition toward white-tailed deer and increased nocturnal habits.Home ranges of white-tailed deer decreased in size and became more linear as housing densityincreased, probably due to concealment cover occurring along streams and draws and increaseddependence on this cover with increased housing. Deer use of patches of cover likely would begreater if patches were closer together and connected with travel corridors. (Vogel)

Elk

In a 1992 study of elk responses to disturbance of cross country skiers in Yellowstone NationalPark, displacement was usually temporary, and elk returned after people left the area. However,this tendency may decline with repeated disturbances. Elk temporarily moved up in elevation, tosteeper slopes, and closer to forested areas when disturbed by skiers. These habitats couldrequire elk to spend more energy for thermoregulation or provide poorer quality forage.Depending on the amount of time elk spend in these areas, displacement to poorer habitat might


be equally or more detrimental than increased energetic costs caused by movement (Hobbs). Elkat Mammoth Hot Springs have habituated to predictable human activity. Predictability seemed toinfluence elk responses to disturbance in other studies of habituated elk (numerous sourcecitations). Elk also might be more likely to habituate to stationary human activity (such as in adeveloped area) than to dispersed activity (J.E. Knight). Restricting cross-country skiers tolocations greater than 2,000 feet from elk wintering areas would probably minimizedisplacement of most non-habituated elk by skiers on shrub steppe and upland steppe winterrange similar to that in Yellowstone. When skier activity is located on elk winter range,concentrating use into as small an area as possible is recommended. Locating skiers in sites withabundant topographic relief and providing security areas in drainage adjacent to those whereskiing occurs also might minimize added energy costs and elk displacement (Cassirer).

A 1985 study reports an elk calf’s response to a simulated mine disturbance. Following initiationof human harassment in 1981, one cow/calf pair abandoned the north end of Dry Ridge andmoved to the south end, where it was not disturbed for the remainder of the experiment. In 1982,two cow/calf pairs left the study area in apparent response to simulated mine noise activity. Elkcalves moved to higher elevations in response to simulated mine activity. A common responseby initially disturbed calves was to move across a ridge or drainage to areas that provided atopographic barrier between the disturbance and the calf. At the initiation of disturbance trials inearly June, cow/calf pairs abandoned the traditional calving area, but returned in several days.This tendency weakened with subsequent disturbance trials. The increased energy costs ofmovement, escape, and stress caused by frequent and unpredictable disturbance may have beendetrimental to calf growth. A serious consequence of persistent disturbance can be the voluntarywithdrawal from available habitat and use of smaller, less favorable areas. (Bacheler)

A 1985 study reports movements of elk in relation to logging disturbance. Regardless of theextent of habituation, or the amount of use during inactive periods, logging displaces elk within1500 to 3000 feet of the disturbance, which effectively reduces habitat availability and,conversely, may increase elk use of habitat beyond these limits. (Edge)

Topography and traffic volumes are consistently the most important variables during calvingthrough rutting seasons. Areas with topographic barriers between them and the source ofdisturbance consistently had higher probabilities of elk use than areas without topographicbarriers for the calving and summer seasons. Security cover appears to be a requirement for elkin the presence of human disturbance. For each of the seasons, areas near high-traffic roadsconsistently had lower probabilities of elk use than areas near low-traffic roads. (Edge)

Moose

Limiting construction and other activities that restrict moose migrations and movements betweentraditional seasonal home ranges and within critical-use areas of a seasonal home range also maybe employed. Increasing demands on the total resource make it imperative that moosemanagement objectives be incorporated into land-use planning. (Franzmann)

About 8 percent of the summer locations (of moose) occur at aquatic sites. Most of these areasare surrounded by conifers, which provide cover. Logging within 300 to 600 feet of these areas


should be avoided. When timber sales are proposed near aquatic sites, logging in winter willminimize the impacts on moose use of the area. Maintain coniferous cover around aquaticfeeding sites and minimize disturbance in these areas. (Matchett)

Raptors

A 1993 study considers the responses of wintering grassland raptors to human disturbance (seetable 5-3). In this study, most species were more likely to flush when approached by a human onfoot than when approached by an automobile. Spatial buffer zones are commonly used to protectnesting sites from disturbance; however, buffer zones for wintering raptors also could beeffective if placed around sensitive foraging areas (Knight and Skagen). Buffer zones that wouldprevent flushing by approximately 90 percent of the wintering individuals of a species. Thisstudy pertains to open habitats such as prairies, rangelands, and agricultural areas (Holmes).

Table 5-3: Mean Flushing Distances of Wintering Grassland Raptors

Species Walking (in feet) Vehicle (in feet) Buffer Zone (in feet)American kestrel 143 103 244Ferruginous hawk 205 266 455Golden eagle 731 266 975Merlin 247 201 406Prairie falcon 520Rough-leggedhawk

575 230 68

Great Blue Herons

Out-of vehicle activity is more disruptive than vehicular traffic. Approaching birds on foot wasthe most disruptive of the usual activities of refuge visitors. Visitors should be told that causing abird to flee may reduce its feeding opportunity. (Klein)

Miller suggested that distance from human activity was the most important factor in selection ofnesting sites by herons. Parker reported that heronries in Montana averaged 0.38 miles fromroads and 0.44 miles from urban developments. The number of nests within the colony wascorrelated with distance from roads, decreasing with proximity.

Overall, the response elicited was dependent upon the type of disturbance. Great blue heronswere most disturbed by land-related intrusions and least by boating activity. Great blue heronswere most responsive early in the breeding season (late February to early March), flushing fromtheir nests at the slightest disturbance and not returning until the cause was no longer present.The average distances at which herons responded during three different time intervals when aperson approached the heronry varied (see Table 5-4).


Table 5-4: Mean Flushing Distances of Great Blue Herons

Month Mean Flushing Distances (in feet)March 410 - 574April 131 - 312May 82 - 197June 148 - 197July 164 - 230

Boating activity was relatively common near the heronries and the birds may have becomehabituated to passing boats. Apparently, herons become habituated to repeated, non-threateningactivities such as fishermen boating past a heronry, as opposed to unexpected disturbances suchas people walking below nest trees or a motorcycle passing the heronry. Even though the numberof young produced at these colonies was sufficient for population stability, human disturbancemay be limiting the number of pairs occupying nests within a particular heronry.

Impacts of human disturbance on great blue herons can be reduced by establishing buffer zonesaround nesting sites that are free from human activity. Based on results from this study, a bufferzone of 820 feet on land and 492 feet in water is recommended. Buffer zones should beestablished in mid-February, before herons arrive at breeding sites, and maintained until earlyAugust when sites have been deserted for the year. (Vos)

Houses have been built at an increasing pace during the last five years in northern Idaho, withmany of them near rivers and lakes. It would seem that these new developments might stronglyaffect heron nesting, because colonies of this species require protection from human disturbanceduring nesting. A buffer of at least 500 feet on land and water has been called for to prevent nestabandonment (Erwin; Vos).

Waterfowl

Increases in human population, transportation, recreational boating, industrial and residentialdevelopment, bird watching, camping, and hiking create conflicts with waterfowl, which mustuse a dwindling and fragmented habitat base. (Dahlgren) Nest desertion by Canada geese wasattributed to the disruptive influences of anglers and sightseers who frequently come close toexposed nesting platforms in Flathead Lake or who occasionally inspect nest boxes at closerange. (Craighead)

Some waterfowl, especially diving ducks (such as canvasbacks and lesser scaup) and geese (suchas brants and snow geese) are especially vulnerable to disturbance. Repeated disturbances alsocan deny birds access to preferred feeding habitats. Effects on breeding waterfowl can includedeclining


numbers of breeding pairs, increased nest desertions, reduced hatching success (due to increasedexposure to cold or predators), and decreased duckling survival (due to increased susceptibilityto predation, severe weather, and/or starvation when separated from their mothers). Access bydogs and other pets should not be permitted in critical areas during the nesting and brood-rearingperiods. Management alternatives designed to reduce human disturbances to waterfowl includeestablishment of screened buffer zones around important waterfowl roosting and feeding areas,and reducing the number of roads and access points to limit accessibility to habitats. (Korschgen)

Bald Eagles

Bald eagles generally prefer to roost in trees that are taller and more open in structure than treesin the surrounding stand. Generally, it takes many years to grow trees of the preferred height andstructure. In the Klamath Basin (Oregon), the age of roost trees ranged from 100 to 535 yearswith a mean of 236 years. Another important attribute of bald eagle communal roosts is theirproximity to food resources. Timber management should enhance the desirable characteristicsfor communal roosting; clear-cutting and harvesting of large trees should be avoided. (Keister)

Research data suggest that eagles avoid human settlements when building new nests. Theseresults suggest that optimal eagle management will include maintenance of substantial areas ofundeveloped shoreline. Because this habitat type is disappearing rapidly in the conterminousstates, it is imperative that inventory and protection begin immediately. Rather than habituate torepeated intrusion, eagles flushed at increasing distances with additional disturbances. Thus itcannot be assumed that eagles will readily adapt to new stimuli. Study results suggest that, ifbuffer zones remain inviolate, restriction of human activities within 1640 feet of nests willprevent disturbance in populations. If occasional violations of the buffer zone are expected, asmight be the case in populated regions, a larger zone may be desirable to ensure againstdisturbing sensitized birds. (Fraser)

Human disturbances play an important role in determining flushing distances and, consequently,the location of bald eagle nests. The observation that some eagle nests are found close to humanhabitation suggests that certain eagles can tolerate human activities at close range. The degree towhich bald eagle populations are able to adjust to the certain continual encroachment on theirhabitat may well depend upon the level of shooting those populations experience. Continuedefforts are recommended in the areas of enforcement and education to minimize future human-induced mortality of this species. (Fraser)

To ensure the continued existence of nesting and roosting habitat for bald eagles, managementplans for individual nest sites and communal roosts are recommended to identify andaccommodate special management problems. (Anthony)

A one-quarter mile radius is recommended for nest site areas where permanent developmentsshould not be constructed. A one-half mile radius is recommended for primary use areas wherethe development of permanent structures such as roads, boat ramps, and dwellings should bediscouraged. A home range with a 2.5-mile radius is suggested where a 200 foot or sight distancebuffer is maintained around perch, roost, and feeding sites. (Paige)


Important forest attributes of three heavily used winter communal roosts near Bottle Bay, onWarren Island, and near Bayview have been identified and located. (Crenshaw)

While individual and small-scale actions may not appear to jeopardize the species as a whole, thecumulative long-term effect throughout the recovery area poses the single most important threatto bald eagle recovery. (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1986)

Much of the bald eagle habitat in the Pacific recovery area is threatened by development. Thefollowing mitigation measures are recommended by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:• Incorporate eagle habitat guidelines in development covenants and regional and county

land use and zoning policies.• Establish buffer zones around nest sites. Buffer zones should be established for

individual nest territories based on the location of nest trees, perch trees, and flight paths,as well as stand characteristics, known individual tolerances, and weather patterns.

• Prohibit building construction near key bald eagle nesting and wintering habitats.Buildings should be no closer than one-quarter mile to the shorelines of feeding waters.

Harlequin Ducks

Recommendations include protecting all stream reaches used by harlequin ducks to maintainmacro-invertebrate populations, woody debris, and riparian vegetation. Human activity shouldbe minimized, particularly in upstream sections suspected to be used for nesting and early broodrearing. (Cassirer)

In 1990, 90 percent of harlequin observations in northern Idaho were in mature or old-growthoverstory. (Cassirer)

Buffer zones also provide a source of debris in the stream and reduce human activity in riparianareas. Recommendations include buffer zones 300 feet or greater on each side of the stream, withno logging or road construction adjacent to streams used by harlequin ducks. (Cassirer)


CHAPTER 6 – MINERALS

Although Bonner County had a small share in the early silver mining glory days when Idaho wasstill a territory, most of the mining activity today is limited to sand and gravel extractions.Mining provided 12 full and part-time jobs in 1980 and rose to a total of 56 jobs in 1996 (CountyProfiles). The established gravel pits, mines, quarries, and sand pits in Bonner County are shownon the map titled, Mines Located in Bonner County, Idaho, found in the map appendix in theNatural Resources component.

Section 6.1 - Metals

There are a few metallic ore mines being operated in Bonner County, but work is restricted toexploration and assessment.

Quantity

Though prospectors have explored Bonner County in search of valuable ores, there is littlepresent-day activity. An Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology geologist stated, “There areliterally thousands of recorded mineral claims in Bonner County and 99 percent of them areworthless” (Battien). Within the Priest River Basin, 78 mines and prospects are cataloged.Prospecting and mining was documented at 45 sites for non-radioactive metals, 11 sites forradioactive metals, and six sites for non-metallic minerals. Minerals of interest or importance atthe remaining 16 sites are unknown. Although the basin was prospected heavily, no mineraldeposits of economic importance were discovered. (Idaho Water Resources Board, 1995)

Mining History

Where mining has occurred, the primary metals of interest include lead, gold, silver, and zinc.The first mining claims to be filed in Bonner County were south of Sandpoint. N. H. Porter andG. W. Ripley staked these claims July 16, 1881. From 1886 to 1887, minerals discovered aroundthe southeast end of Lake Pend Oreille led to a rush, as more than 2,000 prospectors moved intothat district. The first actual mining, probably around the Lakeview area, was started in 1888 byWilliam Ballard and associates. (Mitchell)

Mines were found all around the lake, but operations remained small until about 1917 (IdahoState Historical Society). Beginning in 1917, more than two million ounces of silver wereextracted from Talache area mines. (Mitchell)

The three best recognized districts in Bonner County are Talache, Lakeview, and Hope. Thehistoric mines around Lake Pend Oreille include the Iron Mask and Silver Butte of the Talachearea, and the Elsie Kay, Plume Creek, Auxor Mine, Whitedelph, Lawrence, Shoshone Silver,Weber, and Idaho-Lake View areas. The Iron Mask and Silver Butte mines located 14 milessoutheast of Sandpoint were some of Idaho’s leading silver producers, grossing $2 million insilver between 1917 and 1926 (Battien). Lead and silver production began in 1913 at Clark Forkwith the installation of a 50-ton concentrator. Some $2.5 million (24,000 pounds of lead and 1


million ounces of silver) were extracted in the Clark Fork district from 1913 to 1943. (IdahoState Historical Society)

In 1886, Jonathan Truesdale, et al., filed claims on silver and lead deposits adjacent to UpperPriest Lake. The claims were called the Mountain Chief Mine. The Woodrat Mine, located justoff the Navigation-Hughes Meadow trail, a short distance from the northwest shore of UpperPriest Lake, got a lot of publicity as a future “gold mine” for its developers. The Woodrat was asquare hole in the ground with a rail fence around it. By 1915, the Nickelplate Mine on the top ofNickelplate Mountain just north-northwest of Nordman was publicized as a “live-wire lead,copper, silver, and gold mine.” Despite reports of platinum, copper, silver, and lead being found,the Nickelplate Mine Company went broke. (Simpson)

Silver prices dropped to 32 cents per ounce in 1926. The stock market crash, and the marketslump of the 1930s and early 1940s, combined to make it discouraging and unprofitable to minemetals in Bonner County (Battien). The Idaho Continental mine, just north of Bonner County inBoundary County, was the only productive mine in the Upper Priest Lake country (Simpson).Currently there are no active mines (Rothrock and Mosier).

Section 6.2 - Non-Metals

Type

Sand and gravel mining comprise the majority of mining activities in Bonner County. Claydeposits have the potential for commercial use as ceramic clay or as sealants and stabilizers.(USDA NRCS)

Location

Sand and gravel deposits are plentiful almost everywhere at the lower elevations in the BonnerCounty area. There are active operations in the Priest Lake basin to mine sand and gravel tosupport construction activities (Rothrock and Mosier). Clay sources are located in the Clark Forkand Cabinet Mountain vicinity.

Quantity

Bonner County has approved 35 conditional use permits for sand and gravel mines between 1975and 2003. Reclamation plans have been filed with the State of Idaho for approximately 2,205acres of land representing about 95 mining sites in Bonner County. The acreage represents onlythose operations which have filed reclamation plans with the state. About 10 percent to 15percent of the mining operations in the County do not have approved reclamation plans (IdahoDepartment of Lands). Sand and gravel are being extracted from the majority of the sites(Mineral System Land Inventory). A few sites are being mined for decorative rock and riverbedstones. Data on the estimated quantity and quality of materials being extracted are not available.


Uses

Mined materials in Bonner County are largely used for road and building construction. Miningfor basalt and quartzite are typically used for rip rap, cover material, etc. (Wilson, IDL)


CHAPTER 7 – BEACHES

Section 7.1 - Lake Pend Oreille

Lake Pend Oreille is the largest lake in Idaho. It is approximately 43 miles long and up to 6 mileswide, with 114 miles of shoreline. There are many public and private beaches surrounding thelake ranging from sandy to rocky.

City Beach in Sandpoint is the largest public sand beach on Lake Pend Oreille. It is a beautifulcity park with beach volleyball, basketball, tennis, concessions, boat ramps, and docks. NearHope, the Forest Service operates Samowen Park, donated to the public by Sam and Nita Owen,Hope-area pioneers. The park offers clear water for swimming on a pebble beach. There areseveral barbecue and picnic areas in open timber along the shore, as well as overnight camping, aboat ramp, docks, and hiking.

The Army Corps of Engineers maintains several recreation areas on the lake, plus four areaswest of Sandpoint on the Pend Oreille River. Closest to Sandpoint on the south side of the riveris Springy Point, with a swimming area, launch ramp, camping, and picnic spots. On the lake atTrestle Creek, the Corps maintains a fine-pebble beach with a designated swimming area, picnicgrounds, and a concrete boat launch.

The U.S. Forest Service operates a small campground at Garfield Bay with a small-pebbleswimming area across the road. Whiskey Rock Bay, a remote sandy beach on the east shore ofthe lake, is most accessible by boat. Boaters can dock overnight or pitch a tent and enjoy one ofthe lake’s few natural sandy beaches.

Undeveloped picnic sites may be found along the Monarch Mountains, with a number of small“vest-pocket” beaches from Johnson Creek at the mouth of the Clark Fork to Kilroy Bay. Mostof these beaches are accessible only by boat.

Section 7.2 - Priest Lake

Priest Lake is one of the three largest lakes in the Idaho Panhandle, and a very popular recreationarea. Priest Lake is actually two lakes, Upper and Lower Priest Lake, connected by a 2.5-milethoroughfare. The lake is 25 miles long with 80 miles of shoreline. This 80-mile shoreline offersnumerous sandy beaches, mostly undeveloped.

There are four islands on the lake with sandy beaches for camping. Kalispell and Bartoo Islandshave large, sandy beaches accessible only by boat. A portion of Bartoo Island is private land.Fourmile and Eightmile islands have smaller beach areas.

There are two state park campgrounds on Priest Lake, Indian Creek and Lionhead,. Each offerslarge sandy beaches for swimming. Both are open to day use.


The U.S. Forest Service maintains 10 campground and day use areas with swimming areas onthe west side of the lower lake.


CHAPTER 8 – WATERSHEDS AND AQUIFERS

Section 8.1 - Watersheds

There are three basin areas within Bonner County. They are the Pend Oreille Basin, the ClarkFork Basin, and the Priest Lake and River Basin. The basins have several subwatersheds thatdrain into either Lake Pend Oreille, Priest Lake, Priest River, or the Clark Fork River. Tables 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3 show the recognized subwatersheds of each area and the square miles of eachwatershed. The data for the watersheds were obtained from database of the Idaho PanhandleNational Forests and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (1998).

The Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin encompasses about 25,000 square miles of the intermountainnorthwest in the states of Montana, Idaho, and Washington. The Clark Fork River, Lake PendOreille, and the Pend Oreille River are among the main bodies of water in the basin. The ClarkFork-Pend Oreille Basin is characterized by highly valued recreational economic resources andis the central focus of nearly every major urban, industrial and agricultural activity in the region.Vast resources of minerals, timber, fish, wildlife, water, rangeland, and croplands support avariety of human uses, ranging from mining and agriculture to recreational fishing and boating.(U.S. EPA)

The Priest River basin is 913 square miles in area, of which 761 square miles are in Idaho. Thenortheast corner of Washington contains 137 square miles along the west side of the basin, andthe northernmost 15 square miles of the drainage are within British Columbia, Canada.Approximately 90 percent of the Basin is publicly owned land. (Idaho Water Resource Board,1995)

Pend Oreille Basin Table 8-1 identifies the current subwatersheds in Bonner County that draininto Lake Pend Oreille, the Pend Oreille River, and Cocolalla Lake.

Table 8-1: Pend Oreille Basin

Watershed Location Size sq. mi.Kirby Creek NE of Lake Pend Oreille 2.1Little Sand Creek Part of the Sand Creek watershed 12.3Manley Creek N of Lake Pend Oreille; north of Pend Oreille River 3.8Riley Creek (head) N of Lake Pend Oreille near Laclede; north of Pend Oreille

River5.7

Sand Creek Part of the Sand Creek watershed 17.4Sand Creek (total) N of Lake Pend Oreille near Sandpoint 37.4Schweitzer Creek Part of the Sand Creek watershed 4.9Swede Creek Part of the Sand Creek watershed 1.2Syringa Creek N of Lake Pend Oreille east of Sandpoint: 3.1Trestle Creek NE of Lake Pend Oreille near Hope; 19.7Pack River (total) North and Northeast portion of basin 284.6Brush Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 1.2

Watershed Location Size sq. mi.


Butler Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla 3.8Canyon Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 3.7Caribou Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 14.0Chimney Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 5.2Chloride Gulch Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 4.2Cocolalla Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla 26.5Falls Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 4.6Fish Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla 11.8Gold Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 10.3Gold Creek above West GoldCreek

Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 5.9

Granite Creek Lower arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 26.6Grouse Creek NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 57.7Grouse above south forkGrouse Creek

Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 14.9

Hell Roaring Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 10.9Hoodoo Creek South of Pend Oreille River; east of Albeni Falls Dam 75.7Jeru Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 5.2Johnson Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla 3.6Kick Bush Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 3.4Lower Cocolalla Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla; outlet

watershed to Round Lake1.6

Maiden Creek South end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; west side 0.4Martin Creek Far north end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 3.4McCormick Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 6.8North Fork Grouse Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 15.3North Gold Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 16.4North Twin Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 1.7Pack River (lower) Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 22.7Pack River north of Slide Creek Far north end of basin; part of upper Pack River watershed 7.5Pearl Creek East side of Lake Pend Oreille; south of Trestle Creek 10.4Rapid Lightning Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 47.4Riser Creek East side of Lake Pend Oreille; part of lower Pack River

watershed2.3

State Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 1.3Strong Creek East side of Lake Pend Oreille; part of lower Pack River

watershed4.3

Trapper Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 6.1Trout Creek Far NE end of basin; part of lower Pack River watershed 9.6Tumbledown Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 1.9West Gold Creek Far south end arm of Lake Pend Oreille; east side 7.1

Westmond Creek Portion of the Cocolalla watershed; Cocolalla 10.86


(Patten; Rothrock)

Clark Fork Basin Table 8-2 identifies the most current watersheds identified in Bonner Countythat drain into the Clark Fork River.

Table 8-2: Clark Fork Basin


Carter Creek South of the Clark Fork River; East of Clark Fork 0.6Cascade Creek Portion of Lightning Creek watershed 5.3Derr Creek South of the Clark Fork River; East of Clark Fork 4.8Dry Creek South of the Clark Fork River; East of Clark Fork 12.5East Fork Lightning Creek Portion of Lightning Creek watershed 20.5Johnson Creek South of the Clark Fork River; East of Clark Fork 13.7Lightning Creek NW portion of CF Basin 118.3Lightning Creek aboveRattle Creek

Portion of Lightning Creek watershed 15.9

Porcupine Creek Portion of Lightning Creek subwatershed 7.4Quartz Creek Portion of Lightning Creek watershed 3.8Rattle Creek Portion of Lightning Creek subwatershed 10.6Spring Creek Portion of Lightning Creek watershed 9.9Twin Creek South of the Clark Fork River, East of Clark Fork 12.3Wellington Creek Portion of Lightning Creek subwatershed 9.8

(Patten)

Priest Lake and Priest River Table 8-3 identifies the most current watersheds in Bonner Countythat drain into the Priest Lake or Priest River.

Table 8-3: Priest River Basin

Watershed Location Size sq. mi.PRIEST LAKE WATERSHEDS

Bartoo Island Lower Priest Lake Island 0.4Bear Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 7.3Bear Northwest Perimeter watershed south of Goose Creek, around Cape Horn,

and to Indian Creek1.5

Beaver Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 10.5Cape Horn Perimeter watershed south of Bear Creek, around Cape Horn, and

to Indian Creek1.7

Caribou Creek Upper Priest Lake system tributary 32.5Chase Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 6.4Coolin Perimeter watershed Sherwood Bay south to mouth of Chase

Creek0.6



Coolin Mountain Perimeter watershed south Outlet Bay and west Coolin Bay tomouth of Chase Creek

2.6

Cougar Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 2.4Distillery Bay Perimeter watershed Distillery Bay south to Granite mouth 4.3East Shore Perimeter watershed south of Hunt Creek to Cougar Creek 2.2Eightmile Island Lower Priest Lake Island 0.2Fenton Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 2.0Granite Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 100.0Granite South Perimeter watershed Granite Creek south to Reeder Creek 0.7Goose Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 1.5Horton Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 3.2Huckleberry North Perimeter watershed northern Huckleberry Bay 0.8Hughes Fork Upper Priest Lake system tributary 60.4Hunt Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 18.6Indian Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 23.4Kalispell Bay Perimeter watershed Kalispell Bay between Kalispell Creek and

Reynolds Creek 0.1

Kalispell Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 39.3Kalispell Island Lower Priest Lake Island 0.4Lakeview Perimeter watershed Reeder Creek south to Kalispell Creek 2.9Lion Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 28.8Luby Perimeter watershed Reynolds Creek south to Outlet Bay Resort 2.6Mosquito Bay Perimeter watershed mouth of the Thoroughfare and Mosquito

Bay1.1

North Horton Perimeter watershed south of Indian Creek to Horton Creek 3.0North Hunt Perimeter watershed south of Horton Creek to Hunt Creek 0.4Plowboy Southwest perimeter of Upper Priest Lake and the Thoroughfare 8.2Reeder Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 13.1Reynolds Creek/HannaFlats

Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 7.2

Rocky Point Perimeter watershed west Cavanaugh Bay around Rocky Pointand into Steamboat Bay

1.6

Soldier Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 24.7Squaw Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 2.3Squaw North Perimeter watershed northern Squaw Bay 0.2Squaw South Perimeter watershed southern Squaw Bay and south to Two

Mouth Creek1.2

Tango Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 3.1Teepee Creek plus BottleCreek

Lower Priest Lake system tributary; west side 2.5

Thoroughfare Northeast perimeter of Upper Priest Lake and the Thoroughfare 3.8Trapper Creek Upper Priest Lake system tributary 18.7Two Mouth Creek Lower Priest Lake system tributary; east side 24.3



Upper Priest River Upper Priest Lake system tributary 79.6PRIEST RIVER WATERSHEDS

Big Creek West branch Priest River watershed 15.3Binarch Creek West Branch Priest River watershed 10.7Blickensderfer Creek Lower west branch Priest River watershed 11.4Blonc Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed; Goose Creek 1.1Canyon Creek East off of Priest River watershed 4.5Consalus Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed; Goose Creek 6.3East River East off of Priest River watershed 2.9Flat Creek Lower west branch Priest River watershed 6.3Galena Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed; north of Solo Creek 3.2Goose Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed; south of Solo Creek 12.9Hathaway Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed; Goose Creek 1.7Lamb Creek West Branch Priest River watershed 21.9Lower West Branch Lower west branch Priest River watershed 6.6Middle Fork East River East off of Priest River watershed 30.0Moores Creek Lower west branch Priest River watershed 12.3North Fork River EastRiver

East off of Priest River watershed 30.9

Pine Creek Lower west branch Priest River watershed 5.1Quartz Creek West branch Priest River watershed 11.4Saddler Creek West branch Priest River watershed 4.1Snow Creek Lower west branch Priest River watershed 6.0Solo Creek Upper west branch Priest River watershed 5.1Upper West Branch Upper west branch Priest River watershed and unnamed 18.1


Section 8.2 - Municipal Watersheds

Sandpoint

The Sandpoint watershed in unincorporated Bonner County consists of approximately 8,000acres lying northwest of Sandpoint in Townships 57 and 58 North, Ranges 2 and 3 West, of theBoise Meridian, Bonner County, Idaho. The watershed area is generally defined by thehydrographic ridge line of the Little Sand Creek drainage and encompasses lands located southof the Schweitzer Mountain Resort recreation area. The city’s purest, least costly water isobtained from the 5.3-mile Little Sand Creek that courses through the watershed. Little SandCreek‘s combined tributaries within the watershed equal 9.1 miles. (City of Sandpoint)

The city’s intake and treatment facility for the Sand Creek water supply is located on Little SandCreek on city-owned land. The site is about two miles north of Sandpoint, adjacent to SchweitzerRoad and about 1/3 mile upstream from the valley floor. This has been the main source ofmunicipal water since 1903. The city purchased the water rights and system in 1918 from


Sandpoint Water & Light Company. A 1.3 million-gallon storage dam/intake structure is locatedabout one-half mile upstream from the treatment facility. The city also maintains an intake andtreatment facility on leased land on Lake Pend Oreille as an alternative water supply, shouldLittle Sand Creek not be able to meet demand during dry periods.

The Little Sand Creek watershed area is not only the source of Sandpoint’s principal watersupply, but contains valuable timber, wildlife resources, open space, and recreationalopportunities. Ownership is divided among city, state, federal, and private landowners.Sandpoint owns approximately 50 percent of the watershed, the Bureau of Land Managementowns about 22 percent, and the State of Idaho owns about eight percent, while the remaininglands are privately held. Sandpoint has developed a watershed management agreement to provideguidelines for landowners in the watershed. The voluntary watershed management agreementhas been signed by the city, Bureau of Land Management, Idaho Department of Lands, U.S.Forest Service, and Idaho Department of Environment Quality. Schweitzer Inc. and Pack RiverManagement, representing the largest single private ownership of 14 percent, had not signed theagreement as of spring of 1999.

Inland Forest Management Inc. has developed a Watershed Management Plan for Sandpoint(City of Sandpoint). The management agreement is designed to ensure an adequate andcontinuous supply of high quality water. Management practices address road construction andmaintenance, timber harvest, stream protection zones, use of chemicals, fertilizers andherbicides, erosion control, and development. A timber harvest/management plan has beenprepared for the city land.

A number of natural catastrophes have impacted the watershed over the years. The mostsignificant recent events include a large wildfire in the late 1950s and a “rain on snow event” inApril of 1990 that washed out a significant portion of the Schweitzer Mountain Road and carrieddebris into the city water system. Identified potential threats to the municipal watershed are firehazards, erosion from road or other development, disease, and insects. Road maintenancesharing, healing old erosion sources, and using best management practices when operating in thewatershed are a few methods being used to promote water quality protection. The IdahoDepartment of Lands has been instrumental in implementing this coordination effort amongwatershed landowners. (City of Sandpoint)

From 1981 to 1982 the City of Sandpoint, State Department of Lands, and Pack RiverManagement cooperated in controlling access to the watershed by a locked gate, limited accessto gate keys, and monitoring of logging operations and wood permits. The intention was toreduce unauthorized timber cutting and to prevent road surface rutting and erosion during wetperiods. (The Rathdrum, Idaho city management plan stated that 80 percent of sediment reachingstream channels is caused by roads and only 20 percent by other activities such as skid trails.)

East Hope

Strong Creek’s watershed is the primary water supply for the City of East Hope, which has apopulation of approximately 250 people. The entire basin upstream from the city’s waterdiversion structure is within the U.S. Forest Service boundary, while ownership downstream is


private (Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team). A 150,000-gallon storage tank is located north ofthe city on private property. The water system serves approximately 160 hook-ups (Harris).Minimal disturbance upstream from the diversion has occurred. Access to the area is via a jeeptrail. Recent logging has occurred downstream from the diversion structure and portions of theriparian vegetation has been removed. Watershed conditions on National Forest Lands above theEast Hope water diversion are in good shape and have not been significantly affected by timberharvest or other human disturbance (Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team). Potential threatsfrom landslides due to steep slopes and fire are issues of concern for the city water system(Harris).

City of Hope

Drinking water to the City of Hope is provided by natural springs. These springs are currentlybeing tested by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality to determine whether the springsare a result of surface water or a ground water source. The water is currently not treated beforedistribution to households. Chlorinating will most likely be required if the source of the springsis determined to be surface water. (Klauss)

Section 8.3- Aquifers

Pend Oreille River (Southside) Aquifer

There have been limited studies completed on the Pend Oreille River Aquifer. The SouthsideAquifer is one of the larger aquifers serving Bonner County and is located within the larger PendOrielle River Aquifer, which is depicted on the map located at the end of the Natural Resourceselement Major Aquifers Within Bonner County, Idaho. The study, Hydrogeology of theSouthside Aquifer, was completed by the Department of Environmental Quality in 1987. Sincethen, the Cocolalla Lake Phase I Study was completed. The following information providessome details on the Southside Aquifer.

The Southside Aquifer is a little known glacial aquifer located in Sagle, Idaho. The general flowof water is to the north along Highway 95 and discharges into the Pend Oreille River in the SagleSlough, Murphy Slough, and an unnamed slough on the Pend Oreille River west of Round Lake(DeSmet). The Southside Aquifer covers approximately 46 square miles and extends as far northas the south boundary of the Lake Pend Oreille following Highway 95 to four-miles south ofCareywood, Idaho.

The Southside Aquifer also extends east to the Montana-Idaho border following Cocolalla Creekand west following Westmond Creek, Mirror Lake, and Shepherd Lake. The aquifer varies fromone to eight miles wide and is 17 miles long. There is concern about utilization of septic tanksand drain fields or absorption beds over the Southside Aquifer. (DeSmet)

Approximately 1,000 to 2,000 homes (approximately 2,000 people) are located on this aquifer(General Telephone records, 1987). All of these homes rely upon ground water as their solesource of potable water and nearly all of them rely on septic tanks and leachfields for sewage


disposal. While unsewered housing density is lower on the Southside Aquifer than on theRathdrum Aquifer, average depth to ground water is much less (50 feet versus 100 to 200 feet).There is a concern about potential ground water contamination. (DeSmet)

The Southside Aquifer was developed as a result of erosion since the end of the CambrianPeriod. Drainages were deeply incised into the Belt Rocks. Stream flow from the Pend Oreille,Cocolalla, and Hoodoo Valleys was to the southwest through a drainage system known as theRathdrum River. During earlier ice ages, ice remnants occupied portions of the Cocolalla Valley.Protection by ice kept portions of the glacial deposits from being reworked, developing ahydrogeologic setting unique to the area. (DeSmet)

The Southside Aquifer lies almost entirely within the southern portion of the Purcell Trench. It isbordered on the east by the Precambrian Belt Rocks, on the south and west by granitic rocks ofthe Kaniksu Batholith and on the north by Lake Pend Oreille and the Pend Oreille River.(DeSmet)

Southside Aquifer water flows through a complex system of glacial drift and lake sediments,which fill the Cocolalla Valley. The term glacial drift is used to indicate materials depositeddirectly by ice or by melt water in close proximity to ice. Drift extends to depths of 250 feet ormore. The total depth is not known since wells are usually developed only in the upper surface ofthe aquifer. The Southside Aquifer has a greater abundance of glacial drift with the exception ofthe northern portion because flood events did not rework this area. (DeSmet)

Lake surface elevations of the aquifer vary from 2,062 feet above sea level at Lake Pend Oreille,to an elevation of 2,350 feet about sea level at Mirror Lake. Peak elevations of the mountainsadjacent to the aquifer are near 5,000 feet. Runoff from snow melt and rain provide a significantamount of recharge to the aquifer. (DeSmet)

The very northern portion of the Southside Aquifer consists of glacio-fluvial sediments, whichare unconsolidated, relatively well-sorted gravels and sands with some clay lenses. Drainage isexcellent in the glacio-fluvial materials. Predominant soil types are deep, silty, and sandy loamswith high- to very-high permeability. The larger percentage and remainder of the SouthsideAquifer consists of glacial drift. Glacial drift contains very poorly sorted boulders, gravels, sand,and clay. These sediments were deposited by ice or by melt water in close proximity to glacialice and include outwash, till, and moraine deposits. Well production in this unit is generallygood. Depth to water is highly variable and unpredictable because of perched water tables.(DeSmet)

The Southside Aquifer also has some consolidated silts and clay known as slate. These slates arelikely Latah Member of the Columbia River Basalt or older metasediments. They are very low inporosity and hydraulic conductivity. Water production is low, although it can be satisfactory formost domestic purposes. Water is obtained through fracture flow in these slates. Wells are drilledand developed in these sediments when water is not available in the glacial deposits above.(DeSmet)


According to DEQ, ground water is close to the land surface in many areas of the SouthsideAquifer, and potential for degradation is very high. With an average depth to water at 51 feet,development of industry over the aquifer needs to be scrutinized closely. Continued residentialdevelopment using drainfields for sewage disposal and location of industries using chemicalsand hazardous materials need to be of concern in the future. (DeSmet)

Transportation, handling, and storage of hazardous materials over the Southside Aquifer alsoneed to be major concerns in the future. Highway 95 runs the entire north-south length of theaquifer. This is a major route for railroad and truck shipments. In many areas along thetransportation route, ground water is less than 20 feet from land surface. (DeSmet)

The land wastewater disposal system of the Southside Sewer District is operating very well atthis time but it cannot be determined if ground water degradation is occurring. Better monitoringneeds to be established to more accurately determine any effect on the aquifer from the effluent.Past and future data need to be evaluated closely from inorganic chemical analysis for publicwater systems to aid in determining signs of deterioration. The development of more detailedmapping, including depth to ground water, net recharge, aquifer media, soil media, topography,impact to vadose (shallow groundwater) zone, and hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer is usefulfor future planning and zoning decisions. (DeSmet)

Newport Aquifer

The Newport Aquifer has limited information available due to lack of funding. This aquiferserves Oldtown, Idaho, and Newport, Washington, encompassing 22 square miles within theboundaries of the Pend Orielle River Aquifer as depicted on the map title Major Aquifers inBonner County, Idaho. The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality provided partial fundingfor a Wellhead Protection Plan Phase I in May 1994 for this aquifer.

The City of Newport and the West Bonner Water District No. 1 in Oldtown are served drinkingwater from an interconnected, interstate water supply. Most of the drinking water comes fromthe Idaho Springs located southeast of Oldtown (City of Newport). Bonner County adoptedOrdinance 305, effective April 6, 1996, establishing a Wellhead Protection Overlay ZoneDistrict in response to the data provided in the Wellhead Protection Plan (Bonner CountyRevised Code, Title 12, Chapter 27). The West Bonner Water District No. 1 subsequentlyapplied for a wellhead protection overlay zone. The petition initially was denied by the BonnerCounty Commissioners February 27, 1997 (Bonner County Planning Department File ZC236-96), and later approved August 23, 2001, (ZC279-00).

The Idaho Springs source consists of three springs located one mile southeast of Oldtown, and issited on a plateau 150 feet above Oldtown and Newport. The springs are located on a 40-acre siteowned by the West Bonner Water District No. 1. The estimated combined production of all threesprings is 450 gallons per minute. This intercity and interstate water supply serves approximately1,753 people in Washington and 445 people in Idaho. (City of Newport)

The West Bonner Aquifer in Idaho consists of heterogeneous mixture of sands, clays, andgravels. According to the DEQ Newport/West Bonner study:


• The eastern and southern boundaries follow the topographic divide in the HoodooMountains.

• The Pend Oreille River constitutes the northern aquifer boundary.• No clays were continuous enough to protect the aquifer from contamination.• The aquifer consists of these materials in a bathtub- or bowl-shaped configuration

resting on the intrusive bedrock.• The Hoodoo Mountains form the eastern edge of the West Bonner Aquifer.• Ground water is recharged by snow melt and rain runoff from Hoodoo Mountains,

and infiltration from undulating topography above the aquifer.• Ground water discharges from a series of springs at the north end of the aquifer

above the Pend Oreille River.• The topographic divide in the Hoodoo Mountains forms the eastern boundary of

the aquifer recharge area.• A discontinuous clay layer exists in the general vicinity of Highway 41 in Section

31, Township 56 North, Range 5 West and Section 6, Township 55 North, Range 5West.

• Production of wells varies with the depth of well and location in the aquifer. Twoexisting wells have the capability of producing up to 1500 gallons per minute.These wells are the deepest wells that have been drilled in the area and penetrateover 200 feet of alluvial sediments without encountering bedrock.

• A lobe of the intrusive bedrock exists in the vicinity of the Idaho Hill Landfill inboth Idaho and Washington.

(City of Newport)

Both nitrate concentrations and electrical conductance (EC) are low in the study area. Nitrateconcentrations range from below detection limit to 5.9 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The healthbased maximum contaminant level for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/L. The wells thatexhibit the elevated nitrate concentrations generally are on the east side of the aquifer at theboundary of the Hoodoo Mountains. No investigation was done in the field to evaluate therelative placement of the leach fields and water wells at houses located within this area. Theelevated nitrate concentrations could be coming from the leach fields. Some component of therunoff from the forested intrusive east of this area may be contributing nitrates to the shallowaquifer in that area. The remainder of the wells down gradient toward the Idaho Springs exhibitsmuch lower nitrate concentrations. This indicates that the elevated nitrate concentrations in thevicinity of these wells is a localized condition and currently does not pose any threat to thequality of water at the springs. (City of Newport)

Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer

The Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer is composed of very coarse sand and gravel and is extremelysensitive to contamination. Most substances simply wash through the sand and gravel into theaquifer. Industrial waste, petroleum products, and timber production by-products have beenaccidentally and intentionally dumped over the aquifer. Agricultural and forestry practices havecumulatively affected water quality. Presently, the aquifer provides adequate amounts of high-


quality water, but with the addition of more contaminants, the probability for degradationincreases. This delicate balance between quality and contamination affects all present and futureresidents of Bonner and Kootenai Counties, Idaho, and Spokane County, Washington, who relyon this valuable resource.

The Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer spans approximately 20 square miles in Bonner County (see maptitled Major Aquifers in Bonner County, Idaho), 180 square miles in Spokane County, and 138square miles in Spokane County. The aquifer was created by periodic glacial outburst floods,which left well-washed sands and gravels. The composition of the aquifer is mainly very coarse,and all materials are very porous and permeable.

Water in the aquifer travels south and southeasterly as it passes from Idaho into Washington. Thedepth of the water table decreases by 200 feet from the southern border of Bonner County to thestate line. The water level fluctuates less than 30 inches per year in most areas. There has beenno long-term decline in water levels anywhere in the Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer based on thelimited, available data. Depths to water from land surface range from 400 feet in the northernportion of the aquifer, to about 150 feet near the State line.

Priest River Aquifer

No detailed information is available concerning the Priest River Aquifer (Painter). Based on theGIS coverages mapped for the Natural Resources component, the Priest River Aquifer is almostcompletely within the boundaries of Bonner County (see Major Aquifers Within Bonner County,Idaho). The Priest River Aquifer is about 15,253 square acres (23.83 square miles), stretchingfrom the Upper Priest Lake area to the Pend Oreille River. The aquifer is composed mainly ofsands and gravels.

Kootenai Valley Aquifer

Detailed information is not yet available on the Kootenai Valley Aquifer, which is located inBoundary and Bonner counties (Painter). The portion found in north-central Bonner County inthe Elmira area represents about 208 acres.


CHAPTER 9 – CLIMATE

Section 9.1 - General Statistics

Rainfall

The precipitation table shows the mean and median of the total of water inches (not snowfallinches) for each month. Table 9-1 represents statistical data that were recorded and averagedfrom 1961 to 1990 from different weather stations in the Bonner County region. The data areconsidered normals of monthly precipitation and were obtained from the Idaho State ClimateServices.

Table 9-1: Normals of Monthly Precipitation, 1961-1990 (in Inches)

Element Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual

BayviewModelBasin

Mean 3.03 2.39 2.04 1.75 2.08 1.91 0.98 1.22 1.39 1.80 3.12 3.40 25.11

Median 2.79 2.48 2.01 1.72 2.16 1.62 0.86 1.09 1.49 1.70 2.94 3.65 24.10

CabinetGorge

Mean 4.29 3.19 2.61 2.08 2.22 2.34 1.01 1.60 1.65 2.18 4.34 4.45 31.96

Median 3.83 2.78 2.70 2.13 1.80 2.16 0.85 1.29 1.55 1.85 4.08 4.44 32.11

PriestRiver Exp.Stn.

Mean 3.96 3.12 2.77 2.08 2.44 2.06 1.21 1.45 1.53 2.02 4.33 4.46 31.43

Median 3.91 3.43 2.73 2.08 2.05 2.10 0.94 1.20 1.66 1.85 3.98 4.23 31.89

SandpointKSPT

Mean 4.06 3.31 2.85 2.12 2.52 2.26 1.26 1.63 1.71 2.35 4.74 4.69 33.50

Median 3.64 2.93 2.80 2.06 2.28 2.03 1.15 1.11 1.75 2.09 4.38 4.50 33.72

(Idaho State Climate Services)

Snowfall

Table 9-2 shows the average total snowfall inches for each month. The data were recorded andaveraged from October 1910 to April 1998. The information was collected by the University ofIdaho Research & Extension Center (108137).

Table 9-2: Average Total Snowfall, 1910-1998 in Inches

Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec AnnualUIResearch &Extension

22.9 13.6 6.5 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 6.8 20.5 71.7



Another method by which rainfall and snowfall are measured is snow water equivalent. Thesnow water equivalent (SWE) indicates the density of water content of precipitation. The SWE isthe measurement that is the important criteria of snow (Moore). The statistical data recorded inTable 9-3 was obtained from the Idaho State Climate Services from the SNOTEL 1961 to 1990SWE average in the Schweitzer Basin in Bonner County. According to the data, March, April,and May indicate the greatest amount of SWE for Bonner County.

Table 9-3: Average Snow Water Equivalent Averages, in Inches 1961-1990

Station Day Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov DecSchweitzerBasin

1st 22.1 35.0 43.9 53.4 53.7 34.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 10.5

15th 28.3 39.8 48.7 53.4 45.6 15.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.8 16.2


Growing Season

Table 9-4 was generated from statistics over a 30-year period that indicate the probability of thegrowing season in Bonner County. The data were obtained from the Idaho State ClimateServices from the University of Idaho facilities. The statistics were recorded from 1961 to 1990.

Table 9-4: Growing Season Length, 1961-1990

Daily Minimum Temperature

Probability No. days > 24°F No. days > 28°F No. days > 32°F

9 years in 10 156 133 99

8 years in 10 168 142 106

5 years in 10 193 159 119

2 years in 10 218 175 131

1 year in 10 231 184 138


Frost Days

Table 9-5 was generated from statistics recorded over a 30-year period that indicate the freezinglevel for Bonner County. The data were obtained from the Idaho State Climate Services from theUniversity of Idaho facilities. The statistics were recorded from 1961 to 1990.


Table 9-5: Fall and Spring Freezing Temperatures, 1961-1990

Temperature

Probability 24°F or lower 28°F or lower 32°F or lower

Last freezing temperature in spring:

1 year in 10 later than April 26 May 18 June 2

2 year in 10 later than April 19 May 12 May 29

5 year in 10 later than April 7 May 1 May 19

Last freezing temperature in fall:

1 year in 10 earlier than September 21 September 20 September 3

2 year in 10 earlier than October 1 September 26 September 3

5 year in 10 earlier than October 18 October 7 September 17


Cloud Days

Table 9-6 was generated from statistics over a 30-year period that indicate the number of clouddays in the Spokane region. There were no specific data recorded for Bonner County on solarradiation penetration. The data was obtained from the Western Regional Climate Center of theDesert Research Institute Atmospheric Sciences Center, University and Community CollegeSystem of Nevada, Reno, Nevada. The statistics were recorded from 1961 to 1990.

Table 9-6: Cloud Pattern, 1961-1990

MEAN (a) JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Year

Sunrise toSunset-Clear 48 3.1 3.4 4.5 4.5 5.9 7.3 16.1 15.2 12.3 8.0 3.3 2.8 86.4-PartlyCloudy

48 4.1 4.9 7.8 8.2 10.1 10.3 8.5 8.6 8.3 7.8 5.0 3.9 87.5

-Cloudy 48 23.8 19.9 18.7 17.3 15.0 12.5 6.4 7.3 9.3 15.2 21.7 24.2 191.4

(a) Length of Record in years, although individual months may be missingNormals - Based on the 1961 - 1990 record period(Western Regional Climate Center)


Temperature Means and Extremes

Table 9-7 summarizes the temperature maximum, minimum, and mean from 1910 to 1998. Thedata source was the Western Regional Climate Center of the Desert Research InstituteAtmospheric Sciences Center, University and Community College System of Nevada, Reno,Nevada. The temperature recordation is from the University of Idaho Research & ExtensionCenter.

Table 9-7: General Climate Summary - Temperature

University of Idaho Research & Extension Center 108137

From Year=1910 To Year=1998 Monthly Averages Daily Extremes Monthly Extremes Max. Temp. Min. Temp.

Max. Min. Mean High Date Low Date HighestMean

Year LowestMean

Year = 90 F

<= 32 F

<= 32 F

<= 0 F

F F F F dd/yyyy F dd/yyyy F - F - #Days

# Days # Days # Days

January 32.0 19.9 26.0 54 23/1919 -31 30/1950 36.6 53 7.6 37 0.0 13.5 28.0 2.6 February 37.8 22.7 30.3 61 25/1995 -35 09/1933 37.3 91 13.2 36 0.0 5.3 24.3 1.4 March 46.2 27.6 36.9 71 22/1915 -10 04/1955 43.5 41 28.2 17 0.0 1.1 23.3 0.2 April 57.3 33.9 45.6 87 24/1977 9 01/1936 53.2 34 39.7 55 0.0 0.0 13.3 0.0 May 66.4 40.2 53.3 97 30/1936 22 01/1972 59.2 58 48.4 16 0.1 0.0 3.8 0.0 June 73.3 45.7 59.5 96 24/1992 28 03/1918 63.9 92 54.7 20 0.6 0.0 0.4 0.0 July 81.9 48.3 65.1 104 20/1923 33 18/1919 70.0 85 59.0 93 4.9 0.0 0.0 0.0

August 80.8 46.8 63.8 100 08/1930 28 30/1924 69.8 15 58.6 12 4.3 0.0 0.1 0.0 September 70.3 41.0 55.6 96 02/1938 16 24/1926 62.2 40 50.2 12 0.2 0.0 3.7 0.0

October 56.9 34.1 45.5 82 24/1923 4 31/1935 50.4 44 40.1 19 0.0 0.1 13.2 0.0 November 41.5 28.3 34.9 66 03/1975 -10 19/1921 40.4 54 23.2 85 0.0 2.8 21.0 0.2 December 34.0 23.0 28.5 58 18/1917 -37 30/1968 36.2 25 19.2 83 0.0 11.2 26.8 1.1

Annual 56.5 34.3 45.4 104 7/20/23 -37 12/30/68 48.1 41 41.8 16 10.1 34.0 158.0 5.6 Winter 34.6 21.9 28.3 61 2/25/95 -37 12/30/68 34.5 34 19.8 49 0.0 30.0 79.0 5.2 Spring 56.6 33.9 45.2 97 5/30/36 -10 3/04/55 50.7 34 39.1 55 0.1 1.1 40.4 0.2

Summer 78.7 46.9 62.8 104 7/20/23 28 6/03/18 66.6 61 59.5 54 9.8 0.0 0.5 0.0 Fall 56.2 34.4 45.3 96 9/02/38 -10 11/19/21 48.7 63 39.3 85 0.2 2.9 38.0 0.2

For monthly and annual means, thresholds, and sums: Months with 10 or more missing days are not considered Years with 1 or more missing months are not considered (Western Regional Climate Center)


Table 9-8 represents temperature and precipitation for the Priest River area. The figures are fromthe Priest River Experimental Forest Control Station. The data are monthly averages from 1931to 1980.

Table 9-8: Priest River Experimental Station, 1931-1980

Average MaximumTemperature F°

Average MinimumTemperature F°

Precipitation WaterEquivalent Inches

Snowfall Inches

January 30.1 17.5 4.28 21.1February 37.1 20.2 3.10 15.8March 45.0 24.1 2.75 6.9April 56.9 30.1 2.01 0.6May 67.1 37.6 2.28 0.1June 73.4 43.9 2.31 0.0July 82.8 46.5 .99 0.0August 81.6 44.7 1.15 0.0September 71.6 39.1 1.59 TraceOctober 56.6 32.9 2.82 0.8November 39.1 26.7 4.03 10.2December 32.5 22.6 4.86 24.9AnnualAverage

56.2 32.2 32.17 88.4

(Idaho Water Resource Board, 1995)

Section 9.2 - General History

Weather Patterns - Winds and Fronts

Tables 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, and 9-12 represent the various wind speeds and the direction percent. Allfour seasons have a greater percentage of winds to the northeast and south. The winter seasonhas the greatest percentage of winds to the northeast and south. Following are the various datarelating to direction of the wind by percentage and the speed of the wind in miles per hour. Thedata were collected from January 1, 1991, to December 31, 1994. The data were obtained fromthe Idaho State Climate Services.

Table 9-9: Wind Speeds and Fronts, Winter Season

Direction Speed (mph)

2 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 >22 TotalE 1.12 2.15 13.4 0.09 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.74N 0.77 1.89 3.31 1.54 1.80 2.15 1.36 0.15 0.00 12.97NE 1.58 5.99 15.31 6.25 5.59 1.49 0.15 0.00 0.00 36.38NW 0.24 0.39 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90S 1.62 4.83 9.61 2.61 1.97 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.93SE 0.55 0.86 0.81 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41SW 1.71 3.66 3.12 1.18 1.29 1.21 0.48 0.07 0.02 12.75W 1.40 2.33 3.12 0.90 0.75 0.39 0.02 0.02 0.00 8.93

(Idaho State Climate Services; Traeumer)


Table 9-10: Wind Speeds and Fronts, Summer Season


2 4 6 8 10 14 18 TotalE 2.54 4.87 2.82 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.00 10.35N 0.94 2.30 3.73 2.25 2.32 0.67 0.05 12.25NE 2.32 6.64 7.53 1.80 1.23 0.15 0.02 19.71NW 0.54 0.91 0.67 0.07 0.07 0.00 0.00 2.27S 1.56 5.43 13.19 2.72 0.86 0.00 0.00 23.76SE 1.43 3.98 3.43 0.25 0.07 0.00 0.00 9.16SW 1.14 3.14 4.77 13.6 1.48 0.59 0.02 12.50W 1.04 2.45 4.00 1.16 1.16 0.20 0.00 10.00


Table 9-11: Wind Speeds and Fronts, Spring Season


2 4 6 8 10 14 18 TotalE 2.10 5.00 3.77 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 11.09N 0.68 1.84 4.25 2.15 1.79 0.51 0.00 11.21NE 1.69 4.18 9.54 2.34 1.74 0.17 0.00 19.66NW 0.41 0.56 0.34 0.10 0.07 0.00 0.00 1.47S 1.45 5.41 12.92 3.16 1.64 0.14 0.02 24.76SE 1.30 2.95 3.65 0.36 0.02 0.00 0.00 8.29SW 1.09 3.31 5.19 1.47 2.08 0.92 0.39 14.44W 0.92 1.88 3.48 1.40 1.04 0.29 0.07 9.08


Table 9-12: Wind Speeds and Fronts, Fall Season


2 4 6 8 10 14 18 22 TotalE 2.34 4.45 3.33 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.24N 0.82 2.00 3.17 1.20 1.16 0.42 0.26 0.00 9.02NE 2.65 7.72 12.89 2.89 1.60 0.30 0.00 0.00 28.06NW 0.46 0.44 0.28 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.22S 2.24 6.35 11.68 2.10 1.54 0.32 0.12 0.00 24.33SE 0.90 2.18 1.52 0.12 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.78SW 1.30 3.31 4.43 1.30 2.14 1.12 0.40 0.12 14.11W 1.14 1.74 3.03 0.84 1.16 0.28 0.06 0.00 8.24


Glaciation

Glaciation is the process by which a large body of ice moves slowly down a slope or valleyspreading outward on a land surface. Northern Idaho’s unique water bodies and topography wereinfluenced greatly by what is known as the Pleistocene Period. The Pleistocene Period startedabout two million years ago, when the earth began to experience a series of great ice ages. Greatglaciers grew during those ice ages, and melted during interglacial periods an unknown number


of times. The glaciers tied up enough water on land to lower sea level several hundred feetduring the ice ages (Alt). These ice sheets from Canada invaded northern Washington and Idaho,plugging river canyons and backing up streams to create enormous glacial lakes (Orr).

Nearly every landscape in the region bears, in one way or another, the record of those drasticPleistocene climatic changes. The western regional ice filled the valleys of British Columbia andthe northern parts of Washington, Idaho, and western Montana (Alt). During the Pleistocenethere were at least four major periods of continental glaciation that were separated by warmer“interglacial periods.” Lake Missoula formed in western Montana during the Pleistocene, andrepeated draining of this lake caused when the glacial dam(s) melted helped form the“Channeled Scablands” of Washington. (Press)

The Bessette interglacial was followed by the Fraser glaciation that records the last interval ofmultiple ice sheet advances. This was a time when mountain glaciers expanded and flowed ontothe interior plateaus and lowlands. At the height of the final Fraser glacial advance between20,000 to 10,000 years ago, rounded lobes of the ice sheet probed southward. North of theSpokane River, the Okanagan lobe merged with the ice mass of the Pend Oreille lobe acrossWashington, Idaho, and Montana. (Orr)

Glacial Lake Missoula is the largest lake known to have existed behind an ice dam anywhere inthe world, and its sudden drainages caused the largest floods known to have swept any part ofthe world. At its maximum filling, Glacial Lake Missoula rose to an elevation of about 4,350 feetabove sea level (Alt). In Idaho, the 1,225 foot deep U-shaped Lake Pend Oreille Basin resultedwhen glacial ice cut into soft underlying sediments (Orr). During the earlier of the two recordedice ages, ice flowed down the Purcell Trench of northern Idaho, filling it to overflowing. Theglacially-rounded mountains stand above both sides of the Purcell Trench north of Sandpoint(Alt). The Purcell Trench developed as a result of faulting during the Mesozoic Period andremains today as a valley extending south from the Canadian border through Bonners Ferry,Sandpoint, and part of the Cocolalla Valley. To the east of the trench are the Cabinet Mountains,which are composed of low grade metamorphic Belt Rocks. There were other crustaldisturbances and intrusion of the Kaniksu Batholith, which created the Selkirk Mountains to thewest. (DeSmet)

Once the ice began to diminish, it left a residue of gravel banks that blocked the St. Joe Riverand impounded Lake Coeur d’Alene. Both Lake Pend Oreille and Lake Coeur d’ Alene providedchannels for water released from the Clark Fork River, a branch of the Columbia River, inmultiple gigantic Missoula floods across northern Idaho and northwest Washington. Thesewaters coursed through the south end of Lake Pend Oreille before splitting into two routes. (Orr)

During both of the last two ice ages, glaciers dammed the Clark Fork River at the present site ofLake Pend Oreille to impound Glacial Lake Missoula, which flooded the mountain valleys ofwestern Montana. After each draining of Glacial Lake Missoula, the Purcell Valley lobe of theregional ice that filled the lowlands of British Columbia again advanced south across the ClarkFork River. That impounded a new version of Glacial Lake Missoula that would drain when itswater floated the ice dam. Every sudden drainage released another overwhelming flood andanother major catastrophe (Alt and Hyndman). The flooding waters expelled south and west


through the existing north-south trending valleys of the Rathdrum River drainage. Flooddischarges as great as 9.5 cubic miles per hour were estimated to have discharged from the ClarkFork Valley resulting in flood elevations as high as 2,600 feet. (DeSmet)

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan APPENDIX - 1

APPENDIX

Table 1-5: Chemical Quality of the Priest River, Near Priest River, Idaho

Number ofSamples

Average Value Range of Values

Water Temp (C°) 82 9.5 0.0 - 22Turbidity (J.T.U.) 4 13.6 3.0 - 23Specific conductance(micromhos/cm)

80 66 6.2 - 8.4

PH (range, std units) 6.2 - 8.4

AnionsHCO3 (bicarbonate, mg/l) 10 34.0 21 - 58CO3 (carbonate, mg/l) 10 0.0Cl (chloride, mg/l) 15 .5 0.1 - 1.0F (fluoride, mg/l) 14 0.1 0.1 - 0.2

CationsCa (calcium, mg/l) 15 7.7 4.3 - 13.0Mg (magnesium, mg/l) 15 1.9 1.1 - 2.6Na (sodium, mg/l) 15 1.9 1.2 - 3.0K (potassium, mg/l) 14 0.7 0.3 - 1.6

NutrientsNitrogen, total (mg/l) 1 2.5NO2 + NO3 as N (dissolved, mg/l) 14 0.05 0.01 - 0.30Phosphorus, total (mg/l) 11 0.02 0.01 - 0.03

(Idaho Resource Water Board, 1995)


Table 1-6: High Water Data Priest River in Cubic Feet per Second (cfs)


6860 3550 5480 4670 5420 6530 10700

Lowest DailyMean

183 168 211 165 195 276 276

(U.S.G.S., 12395000)

Table 1-7: Priest River

Streams Length(mi)

Order AverageAnnual (cfs)

Peak flow (cfs)

Mean Low (cfs)

Beaver Creek 5.9 3rd 23.6 266 2.2Big Creek 3.3 3rd 18.1 206 1.6Binarch Creek 4.3 1st 21.7 246 2.0Bottle Creek 1st 1.5 20 0.1Canyon Creek 3.1 1st 10.7 125 0.9Caribou Creek 11.2 3rd 75.8 810 7.5Cedar Creek 4.2 2nd 10.8 126 0.9Goose Creek 4.8 3rd 23.5 265 2.2Granite Creek + SF 10.3 4th 22.9 259 2.1Hughes Fork 12.5 4th 39.3 434 3.7Hunt Creek 4.3 3rd 39.2 432 3.7Indian Creek 10.5 3rd 58.2 630 5.7Kalispell Creek 13.5 3rd 23.9 269 2.2Lamb Creek 9.3 2nd 22.6

(head) 9.0256

(head) 1062.1

(head) 0.8Lime Creek 3.9 2nd 11.9 139 1.0Lion Creek 11.1 2nd 65.9 709 6.5Lost Creek 7.1 2nd - - -Lower West Branch 12.2 4th 13.6 158 1.2Middle Fork East River 9.0 4th 57.3 620 5.6Moores Creek 7.4 3rd 4.5 55 0.4North Fork East River 8.8 3rd 42.6 467 4.1Priest LakePriest River 45.5 5th

Streams Length(mi)

Order AverageAnnual (cfs)

Peak flow (cfs)

Mean Low (cfs)


Quartz Creek 2.4 2nd 15.6 185 1.4Reeder Creek 7.9 2nd 24.5 276 2.3Snow Creek 11.8 2nd 12.8 149 1.1Soldier Creek 7.1 3rd 42.0 461 4.0Tango Creek 2.7 1st - - -Trapper Creek 6.4 3rd 43.1 473 4.1Two Mouth Creek 8.9 2nd 56.6 613 5.5Upper Priest River -Upper Priest Lake andThoroughfare

2.7 5th - - -

Upper Priest River toCanadian border

18.5 5th (mid) 32.9(head) 10.8

(mid) 366(head) 126

(mid) 3.1(head) 0.9

Upper West BranchPriest River

19.7 4th 165 189 1.5

(Idaho Panhandle National Forests; Rothrock and Mosier; DEQ 1993; Idaho Resource WaterBoard, 1995)


Table 1-16: Management Objectives for Bonner County

Suggestions by the DEQ for potential funding sources; no commitment for funding has been received.

Key to funding sources:

1. Clean Water Act Section 1062. Clean Water Act Section (Clean Lakes Program)3. Clean Water Act Section 319 (Non-point Source

Program)4. Clean Water Act Section 525 Reauthorization5. National Environmental Education Act6. Idaho Clean Lakes Act7. State Revolving Fund Grant Loan Program

8. Anti-degradation Policy 9. Agricultural Water Quality Management Program10. Habitat Improvement Program11. Forest Stewardship Program12. Bonner County, Idaho13. Private landowner14. Municipalities15. Industries/Dischargers

Management Alternatives Lead Agency Priority Cost dollars FundingSources

Implement a stormwater control plan and BonnerCounty Ordinance. (Objective realized May 28, 1993;Bonner County Ordinance 227)

Bonner Co.,PHD, SCS

High 15,000 (development only) 2,3,4,12

Identify areas in the Lake Pend Oreille watershed andzone for more dense development incorporatingmunicipal wastewater treatment facilities.

Bonner Co.,PHD, SCS

High Unknown (low) 12

Implement an erosion control plan and Bonner Countyordinance. (Objective realized May 28, 1993; BonnerCounty Ordinance 227)

Bonner Co.,DEQ

High 15,000 (development only) 2,3,4,12

Amend zoning ordinances to set residential densitybased on land and lake capabilities

Bonner Co.,DEQ, SCS

High Unknown (low) 12

Amend zoning ordinances to restrict development inenvironmentally sensitive and unstable areas nearwatercourses.

Bonner Co.,DEQ

Medium Unknown (low) 12

Management Alternatives Lead Agency Priority Cost dollars FundingSources


Allow individuals and developers to design erosioncontrol plans based on soil type and slope. (Objectiverealized May 28, 1993; Bonner County Ordinance 227)

Bonner Co.,DEQ

Medium 30,000 annually 12,13

Develop best management practices for methods andrates of application of fertilizers based on soil type andslope.

Bonner Co.,DEQ

Medium 10,000 2,3,4

Implement a Bonner County ordinance prohibiting thesale of phosphate lawn fertilizers.

Bonner Co.,DEQ

Medium 2,000 (development only) 2,4,12

Implement a Bonner County ordinance prohibitingshoreline burning.

Bonner Co.,IDL

Medium 2,000 (development only) 2,4,12

Require marinas to install pump out stations. Bonner Co. High Unknown 13Selective removal of aquatic plants by hand. Bonner Co.,

Private Low 100-150 for handheld cutter 12,13

Remove aquatic plants periodically using mechanicalharvesting.

Bonner Co. Low 500-800 per acre biannually 12,13

Cover lake bottom with fabric barrier. Bonner Co.Private

Low 0.06-1.25 per sq. ft. withannual maintenance

12,13

(Hoelscher)


Table 1-18: Water Quality for Upper and Lower Priest Lake*

TributariesTotal

Phosphorus(TP)

TotalInorganicNitrogen

(TIN)

TotalOrganicNitrogen(TOC)

TotalSuspendedSolid (TSS)

MineralContent

EC

Upper Priest Riverat mouth

Moderate Highest Low High Highest

The Thoroughfare Low Low Moderate Low LowEast Side StreamsBear Creek -- -- -- -- --Caribou Creek Low High Moderate Low LowGoose Creek -- Low Low -- LowIndian Creek Low Low Low Low LowLion Creek Moderate Moderate Low Low LowSquaw Creek -- -- -- -- --Trapper Creek Low Low Moderate Low LowTwo Mouth Creek Low Low Low Low LowLower East SideCougar Creek High High Moderate High LowHorton Creek Moderate Low Low Moderate LowHunt Creek Moderate Low Moderate Moderate LowSoutheast SideSoldier Creek Moderate Low Moderate Moderate LowUpper West SideBeaver Creek Low Low Moderate Moderate LowDistillery Bay Tribs Moderate Low Moderate Moderate ModerateTango Creek -- -- -- -- --Tepee Creek -- -- -- -- --Granite Creek Moderate Low Moderate Moderate ModerateMid-Lower West SideKalispell Creek High High High Highest ModerateLamb Creek High Highest Highest Highest ModerateReeder Creek High Highest Highest Moderate ModerateReynolds Creek High Moderate Highest Highest HighRelative RankingCriteria Units

ìg/L ìg/L ìg/L mg/L EC (ìmhos)

Low < 2 to 9 < 5 to 39 < 50 to 79 < 1 to 3 8 to 29

TributariesTotal

Phosphorus(TP)

TotalInorganicNitrogen

(TIN)

TotalOrganicNitrogen(TOC)

TotalSuspendedSolid (TSS)

MineralContent

EC


Moderate 10 to 19 40 to 79 80 to 149 3 to 7 30 to 49High 20 80 to 119 150 to 299 7 to 15 50 to 69Highest -- > 120 > 300 > 15 > 70

* Relative ranking of water quality characteristics for Upper and Lower Priest Lake tributaries,based on spring run-off, high flow data.(Rothrock and Mosier)

Table 1-19: Criteria for Fixed Trophic Classification

Trophic State

Concentrations (:g/L)Secchi disk readings

(m)TotalPhosphorus Chlorophyll a

Mean Mean Maximum Mean MinimumUltra-oligotrophic < 4.0 < 1.0 < 2.5 > 12 > 6Oligotrophic <10.0 < 2.5 < 8.0 > 6 > 3Mesotrophic 10 to35 2.5 to 8 8 to 25 6 to 3 3 to 1.5Eutrophic 35 to100 8 to 25 25 to 75 3 to 1.5 1.5 to 0.7Hypereutrophic > 100 > 25 > 75 < 1.5 < 0.7

(Hoelscher)

Table 1-20: Trophic State of Upper and Lower Priest Lake

The trophic states are (TS) trophic state, (UO) ultra-oligotrophic, (O) oligotrophic, (OM) oligo-mesotrophic.

TotalPhosphorus

(:g/L)Chlorophyll a (:g/L) Secchi disk

Lake Mean TS Mean TS Max. TS Mean TS Min. TSUpper1993 10 OM 1.8 O 4.1 O 6.5 O 3.0 OM1994 5 O 1.6 O 3.2 O 8.1 O 4.3 O1995 4 O 2.5 OM 3.9 O 7.1 O 4.5 OLower1993 5 O 1.0 O 2.2 UO 9.5 O 4.7 O

TotalPhosphorus

(:g/L)Chlorophyll a (:g/L) Secchi disk

Lake Mean TS Mean TS Max. TS Mean TS Min. TS


1994 4 O 1.4 O 3.0 O 10.1 O 6.0 O1995 4 O 1.6 O 3.8 O 9.7 O 5.0 O



Table 2-5: Idaho Conservation Data Center Special Status Plant Species by County

Updated: January, 2000The following lists of species represent known occurrences in Bonner County. The list does not represent potential distribution.

Scientific Name Common Name Federal State USFS-R1 USFS-R4 BLMAndromeda polifolia bog-rosemary 1 SAster junciformis rush aster S SAstragalus microcystis least bladdery milkvetch 1Betula pumila var glandulifera dwarf birch SBlechnum spicant deerfern S S SBotrychium ascendens triangular-lobed moonwort SC GP3 S SBotrychium lanceolatum var lanceolatum lance-leaved moonwort S S SBotrychium minganense Mingan moonwort S S SBotrychium montanum mountain moonwort GP3 SBotrychium pinnatum northern moonwort S S SCarex buxbaumii Buxbaum’s sedge S S SCarex chordorrhiza string-root sedge 1 S SCarex comosa bristly sedge 1 S SCarex flava yellow sedge M S SCarex leptalea bristle-stalked sedge S SCarex livida pale sedge S S SCarex paupercula poor sedge 2 SCarex rostrata beaked sedge SCetraria subalpina 1 SCicuta bulbifera bulb-bearing water hemlock S S SCladonia imbricarica

Scientific Name Common Name Federal State USFS-R1 USFS-R4 BLM


Cladonia transcendens transcending reindeer lichen 2 SCladonia uncialis 1 SCollema curtisporum short-spored jelly lichen GP1Collema furfuraceumCypripedium parviflorum var pubescens small yellow lady’s slipper 1 SDiphasiastrum sitchense sitka clubmoss S SDryopteris cristata crested shieldfern S SEpilobium palustre swamp willow-weed M S SEpipactis gigantea giant helleborine 1 SEriophorum viridicarinatum green keeled cottongrass 1 SGaultheria hispidula creeping snowberry 2 SHypericum majus large Canadian St. John’s-wort 2 S SHypogymnia apinnata tube lichen S SLobaria hallii Hall’s lungwort 2 SLycopodiella inundata northern bog clubmoss 1 SLycopodium dendroideum groundpine S SMaianthemum dilatatum false lily-of-the-valley 1 WMuhlenbergia racemosa green muhly 1 SNymphaea leibergii Leiberg’s waterlily SXOxalis trilliifolia trillium-leaved wood sorrel 1Petasites sagittatus arrowleaf coltsfoot MPhegopteris connectilis northern beechfern 2 SPolystichum braunii Braun’s swordfern 2 SRhynchospora alba white beakrush 1 SRibes sanguineum red-flowered currant 1

Scientific Name Common Name Federal State USFS-R1 USFS-R4 BLM


Rubus spectabilis salmonberry 1 SSalix candida hoary willow S S SSalix pedicellaris bog willow 2 SSanicula marilandica black snakeroot SScheuchzeria palustris pod grass 2 SScirpus subterminalis water clubrush S S SSphagnum mendocinum peatmoss 2Streptopus streptopoides var brevipes kruhsea S STellima grandiflora fringecup SThalictrum dasycarpum purple meadow-rue RTriantha occidentalis ssp brevistyla short-style tofieldia 1 STrientalis arctica northern starflower S STrientalis latifolia western starflower M SVaccinium oxycoccos bog cranberry 2 S

(Idaho Conservation Data Center)


Table 5-2: Special Status Species, Bonner County

Scientific name Common name Comments G-rank S-rank State Federal USFS-

1 BLM

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk Nesting territories G5 S4 SC W S SAechmophorusoccidentalis

Western grebe Breeding sites G5 S4B S2N P

Aegolius funereus boreal owl Probable nestingterritories

G5 S2 SC W S

Bucephala clangula common goldeneye Breeding sites S3B S3N GBucephala islandica Barrow’s goldeneye Breeding site G5 S3B S3N GChlidonias niger black tern Colonial breeding

areasG4 S2B S2N SC

Corynorhinustownsendii

Townsend’s big-eared bat Confirmed trappedspecimens

G4 S2? SC SC S S

Elgaria coerulea Northern alligator lizard Occupied habitat G5 S2? WFalco peregrinusanatum

peregrine falcon Eyrie G4T3

S1B S2N E S S

Gavia immer common loon Breeding sites G5 S1B S2N SC W SGlaucidium gnoma Northern pygmy-owl Probable nesting

territoriesG5 S4 SC W W

Gulo gulo luscus North Americanwolverine

Sightings,confirmedspecimens

G4T4

S2 SC W S S

Haliaeetusleucocephalus

bald eagle Nesting territories,wintering area

G4 S3B S4N E LT

Histrionicus histrionicus harlequin duck Breeding streams G4 S2N S1B GSC W S S

Scientific name Common name Comments G-rank S-rank State Federal USFS-

1 BLM


Lophodytes cucullatus hooded merganser Breeding sites G5 S2B S3N GLoxia leucoptera white-winged crossbill Nesting areas G5 S1? PLynx canadensis lynx Sightings,

confirmedspecimens

G5 S1 GSC PT S

Martes pennanti fisher Sightings G5 S1 SC W S SMyotis evotis long-eared myotis Confirmed trapped

specimensG5 S3? W

Myotis yumanensis yuma myotis Confirmed trappedspecimens

G5 S2? W

Oreortyx pictus mountain quail Probable sighting G5 S2 SC SCOtus flammeolus flammulated owl Probable nesting

territoryG4 S3B S2N SC W S S

Picoides arcticus black-backed woodpecker Nesting territory G5 S3 SC W S SPicoides tridactylus three-toed woodpecker Nesting territories G5 S3 SC W SPodiceps grisegena red-necked grebe Breeding sites G5 S1 PPoecile hudsonicus boreal chickadee Probable nesting

territoriesG5 S1? P

Sorex merriami Merriam’s shrew Museum specimens G5 S2?Sorex hoyi pygmy shrew Confirmed trapped

specimensG5 S2 W

Strix varia barred owl Probably nestingterritories

G5 S4 P

Strix nebulosa great gray owl Nesting territory G5 SC SC W SSynaptomys borealis Northern bog lemming Confirmed trapped

specimenG4 S1 SC W S

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan GLOSSARY - 1

The CDC ranks the rangewide and state status of plants and animals on a scale of 1 to 5. 1 Critically imperiled2 Imperiled3 Rare or uncommon but not imperiled4 Not rare but apparently secure but with cause for long-term concern5 Demonstrably widespread, abundant and secureB Breeding populationN Nonbreeding populationSC Special concern (state) or species of concern (federal)T ThreatenedE EndangeredP Protected game/nongameW Species stable but with population on periphery of range, unique habitatLT Listed threatenedPT Species proposed to be listed as threatened? Not yet ranked

GLOSSARY

Abbreviated Water Quality Units

ac acreac-ft acre-feetcfs cubic feet per secondcm centimeterha hectarekg kilogramskg/ha/yr kilograms per hectare per year

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan GLOSSARY - 2

L literm metermg/L milligrams per litermg/m2 milligrams per square metermL millilitermm3/cm2 cubic millimeters per square centimeterm. ton metric tonìg/L micrograms per literÌmhos micromhos per centimeter (electrical conductivity)

Conversion Factors Applicable in this Report

Multiply To Obtainacre 0.405 hectareacre-feet (ac-ft) 1,219.68 cubic meterscentimeter (cm) 0.3937 inchcubic meter (m2) 35.31 cubic footcubic kilometer (km3) 0.2399 cubic milecubic feet per second (cfs) 0.028 cubic meters per secondfeet (ft) 0.3048 metershectare (ha) 2.47 acrekilogram (kg) 2.205 poundkilogram per hectare (kg/ha) 0.8922 pounds per acrekilometer (km) 0.6214 mileliter (l) 1.057 quartmeter (m) 3.281 footmetric ton 1.102 square footmile (mi) 1.609 kilometersquare meter (m2) 10.76 square foot

To convert ºC (degrees Celsius) to ºF (degrees Fahrenheit), use the following: ºF=(1.8 x ºC) +32

Term Definition

Accipiter Any of a genus of medium-sized, short-winged

anadromous ocean-migrating

Natural Resources ComponentBonner County Comprehensive Plan BIBLIOGRAPHY - 1

anoxic of such severity as to result in permanent damage

AST above ground storage tanks

benthic deep

biota the flora and fauna of a region

Bovids Any of a family (Bovidae) of ruminants that have hollow, unbranched,permanently attached horns present in both sexes and that include antelopes,oxen, sheep, and goats.

Cambrian Relating to the earliest geologic period of the Paleozoic era.

Category 2 Species Listing as a threatened or endangered species might be appropriate, butconclusive data is not currently available.

Chlorophyll The green photosynthetic coloring matter of plants

DEQ Idaho Division Environmental Quality

Eutrophication high-nutrient, low-oxygen content

HM hazardous materials

IDL Idaho Department of Lands

Littoral near shore waters

order

pelagic off shore waters

PHD Panhandle Health District

piscivores fish eaters

Pleistocene of the earlier epoch of the Quaternary or the corresponding system of rocks

Precambrian Geologic era that occurred 4.5 billion years ago.

rip/rap A foundation or sustaining wall of stones or chunks of concrete throwntogether without order.

riparian relating to river banks

scaup a species of diving ducks with a fondness for shellfish

seechi disc A device used to measure water clarity.

SCS United States Soil Conservation Service

trophic level One of the hierarchical strata of a food web characterized by organisms whichare the same number of steps removed from the primary producers.

UST underground storage tank

Vadose Shallow ground water.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Alt, David and Donald W. Hyndman. Northern Exposures a Geologic Story of the Northwest.Missoula. Montana: Mountain Press Publishing Company, 1995.

American Fisheries Society, Idaho Chapter. Fishes of Idaho. Web site:http://www.fisheries.org/idaho/fishes_of_idaho.htm

Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland, and J.I. Hodges. 1982. Habitat Useby Nesting and Roosting Bald Eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Transcript, NorthAmerican Wildlife Natural. Resources Conference, 47:332-342.

Bacheler, C.L. 1968. Compensatory Response of Artificially Controlled Mammal Populations.Proceedings of the New Zealand Ecological Society 15:25-30.

Barney, Danny L., PhD. 2003. Letter to Bonner County Planning Department. 13 January,2003.

Battien, Pauline. The Gold Seekers. 1989.

Beck, A.M.. The Ecology of Stray Dogs: A Study of Free-ranging Urban Animals. Baltimore:York Press,1973.

Bergquist, June. Water Quality Compliance Officer. State of Idaho, Department ofEnvironmental Quality. 17 August 1998.

Bonner County Conditional Use Permit 519-94.

Bonner County Planning Department File ZC236-96.

Bonner County Revised Code, Title 12, Chapter 27.

Bonner Soil Conservation District. Cocolalla Lake Watershed Management Plan. ShelleyGilmore, Shelly, Resource Planning Unlimited. June 1996.

Bonneville Power Administration. Albeni Falls Wildlife Management Plan Final EnvironmentalAssessment. Portland, OR. 1996.

Brown, David. District Conservationist. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 07 August1998.

Cassirer, E.F. and C.R. Groves. Harlequin Duck Ecology in Idaho: 1987 - 1990. State of Idaho,Department of Fish and Game. 1991.

---, D.J. Freddy, and E.D. Ables. 1992. Elk Responses to Disturbance by Cross-country Skiers inYellowstone National Park. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 20(4):375-381.


Cole, Patrick. Habitat Biologist. State of Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Personalobservation.

---. Habitat Biologist. State of Idaho, Department of Fish and Game. Email to Bonner CountyPlanning Department staff. 4 January 2000 and 10 January 2000.

--- and Paul Hanna. Pend Oreille Wildlife Management Area Management Plan. Idaho Fish &Game Department. July 1999.

Coleman, J.C., and S.A. Temple. 1993. Rural Residents’ Free-ranging Domestic Cats: A Survey.Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21:381-390.

Craighead, J.J. and D.S. Stockstad. 1961. Evaluating the Use of Aerial Resting Platforms byCanada Geese. J. Wildlife Management. 25:363-372.

Crenshaw, J.G. 1987. Effects of the Cabinet Gorge Kokanee Hatchery on Wintering Bald Eaglesin the Lower Clark Fork River and Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho. Bonneville PowerAdministration.

Cronan, J.M., Jr. 1957. Food and Feeding Habits of the Scaups in Connecticut Waters. Auk74:459-468.

Dahlgren, R.B. and C.E. Korschgen. 1992. Human Disturbance of Waterfowl: An AnnotatedBibliography. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Resour. Pub. 188.

DeSmet, James S., P.E. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. North IdahoRegional Office. Hydrogeology of the Southside Aquifer, Sagle, Idaho. Coeur d’Alene,ID. 1987.

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1985. Movements of Elk in Relation to Logging Disturbance. J.Wildl. Manage. 49(4):926-930.

---. “Topography Ameliorates the Effects of Roads and Human Disturbance on Elk” inProceedings of a Symposium on Elk Vulnerability. Bozeman: Montana State University,1991.

Eduscapes. Bighorn Sheep. Web site: http://www.eduscapes.com/nature/bighorn. 9 July 2002.

Erwin, M.R. 1989. Responses to Human Intruders by Birds Nesting in Colonies: ExperimentalResults and Management Guidelines. Colonial Waterbirds 12:104-108.

Figley, W.K. and L.W. Vandruff 1982. The Ecology of Urban Mallards. Wildl. Monogr.

Franzmann, A.W. “Moose” in. Big Game of North America Ecology and Management. J.L.Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert. Harrisburg, PA: Stockpole Books, 1980.


Fraser, J.D., L.D. Frenzel, and J.E. Mathisen. 1985. The Impacts of Human Activities onBreeding Bald Eagles in North-central Minnesota. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):585-592.

FurBearers Unlimited. Web site: http://www.furbearers.org/FbuFurbearers.html. 9 July 2002.

Geis, M.B. 1956. Productivity of Canada Geese in the Flathead Valley, Montana. J. Wildl.Manage. 20:409-419.

General Telephone records, 1987.

Harris, Bob. Mayor of East Hope. Personal communication. 23 July 1999.

Hoelscher, Brian, Jack Skille, and Glen C. Rothrock. State of Idaho, Department ofEnvironmental Quality. North Idaho Regional Office. Phase I Diagnostic Analysis: AStrategy for Managing the Water Quality of Lake Pend Oreille Bonner and KootenaiCounties, Idaho, 1993. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1993.

Holmes, T.L., R.L. Knight, and L. Stegall. 1993. Responses of Wintering Grassland Raptors toHuman Disturbance. Wildl. Soc. Bull. 21(4):461-468.

Hobbs, N. T. 1989. Linking Energy Balance to Survival in Mule Deer: Development and Test ofa Simulation Model. Wildlife Monograph 101.

Hume 1976.

Hunting Network. Whitetail Deer. Web site: http://www.whitetaildeer.com. 30 May 2002.

Idaho 2000, Official Millennium Travel Guide. 2000.

Idaho Climate Services. Biological and Agricultural Department at University of Idaho.Moscow, Idaho. Web site: http://baegis.ag.uidaho.edu/~climate/download.html. 6 August1998.

Idaho Department of Lands. Mineral System Land Inventory.

Idaho Conservation Data Center. May 1998.

Idaho Fish & Game, letter of March 18, 1999.

Idaho Fish & Game Commission. Idaho 2000 and 2001 Fishing Seasons and Rules IncludingSteelhead. Boise, Idaho. 2000.

Idaho Public Television. Dialogue4Kids. Bear Facts. Web site: http://www.idahoptv.org/dialogue4kids/bears/facts.html. 30 May 2002.

Idaho State Historical Society. Mining in Idaho. Boise, ID. 1969.


Idaho Water Resource Board. Idaho Comprehensive State Water Plan - Priest River Basin.Boise, ID. 1995.

---. State of Idaho - The State Water Plan. Boise, ID. 1997.

Jageman, H. White-tailed Deer Habitat Management Guidelines. Moscow, ID: University ofIdaho. 1984.

Jahn, L.R. and R.A. Hunt. Duck and Coot Ecology and Management in Wisconsin. Wis.Conserv. Dep. Tech. Bull. 33. 1964.

Keister, G.P. and R.G. Anthony. 1983. Characteristics of Bald Eagle Communal Roosts in theKlamath Basin, Oregon and California. J. Wildl. Manage. 47(4):1072-1079.

Klauss, Mike. Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Personal communication..

Klein, M.L. 1993. Waterbird Behavioral Responses to Human Disturbances. Wildl. Soc. Bull.21(1):31-39.

Knight, J.E., Jr. Effect of Hydrocarbon Development on Elk Movements and Distribution inNorthern Michigan. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan. 1980.

Knight, R.L. and S.K. Skagen. “Effects of Recreational Disturbance on Birds of Prey: AReview” in Proceedings of the Southwest Raptor Management Symposium: A Workshop.R.L. Glinski, B.G. Pendleton, M.B. Moss, M.N. LeFranc, Jr., B.A. Millsap, and S.W.Hoffman, eds. Washington, D.C:National Wildlife Federation, 1988.

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. Human Disturbance of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, andManagement. in D.H. Cross Compiler, Waterfowl Management Handbook. U. S. Fishand Wildlife Service. Fish Wildl. Leaflet 13. 1992.

Kuck, L., G.L. Hompland, and E.H. Merrill. 1985. Elk Calf Response to Simulated MineDisturbance in Southeast Idaho. J. Wildl. Manage. 49(3):751-757.

Liknes and Graham, 1988.

Lincer, J.L. 1981. Bald Eagle Management at the Local Government Level. Florida Sci. 44:36-37.

Lowry, D.A. and K.L. McArthur. 1978. Domestic Dogs as Predators of Deer. Wildl. Soc. Bull.6(1):38-39.

Matchett, M.R. 1985. Habitat Selection by Moose in the Yaak River Drainage, NorthwesternMontana. Alces 21


Miller, R.F. 1943. The Breeding Birds of the Philadelphia Region. (Part ll) Cassinia 33:1-23.

Mitchell, Lori et. al. The History of Bonner County. Sandpoint, ID:Spud Press, 1996.

Moore, Dean. Soil Conservationist. Natural Resource Conservation Service. 04 August 1998.

Monster Muleys. Mule Deer. Web site: http://monstermuleys.com/muledeer.html. 30 May 2002.

Montgomery Watson Engineers, 1993.

Mortay’s Home Page. The Mountain Lion. Web site:http://www.mortay.com/Cougar/Lion.shtml. 30 May 2002.

Mossier, Jere. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. North Idaho RegionalOffice. Idaho Lake Water Quality Assessment Report. Water Quality Status Report No.105. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1993.

Mountain Goats. Web site: http://www.mountain-goats.org. 30 May 2002.

Naturescapes. Web site: http://eduscapes.com/nature. 9 July 2002.

Newport, City of. Washington/West Bonner Water District, No. Idaho. Wellhead ProtectionPlan Phase I. Welch, Comer & Associates, Inc. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1994.

Northeast Furbearer Resources Technical Committee (NEFRTC). Trapping and FurbearerManagement: Perspectives from the Northeast.

Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Upland Game Identification. Web site:http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/tools/upland

Orr, Elizabeth L. and William N. Orr. Geology of the Pacific Northwest. San Francisco:TheMcGraw-Hill Companies, Inc, 1996.

Paige, C.B. Madden and B. Ruediger. 1991. Habitat Management Guide for Bald Eagles inNorthwestern Montana. Montana Bald Eagle Working Group.

Painter, Brian. Groundwater Specialist, Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. Personalcommunication.

Panhandle Bull Trout Technical Advisory Team. Lake Pend Oreille Key Watershed Bull TroutProblem Assessment. Prepared for Lake Pend Oreille Watershed Advisory Group and theState of Idaho. December 1998.

Parker, J. Great Blue Herons (Ardea herodias) in Northwestern Montana: Nesting Habitat Useand Effects of Human Disturbance. Missoula: University of Montana. 1980.


Patten, Rick. Forest Hydrologist. Idaho Panhandle National Forests. Pend Oreille Basin, ClarkFork Basin, and Priest River Basin. Statistics and database on the subwatersheds of thebasins. 21 July 1998.

Predator Conservation Alliance. Web site: http://www.predatorconservation.org. 11 July 2002.

Peek, J.M. “Northern Rocky Mountains” in White-tailed Deer Ecology and Management. L.K.Halls, ed. Harrisburg, PA: Stockpole Books, 1984.

Press, Frank and Raymond Siever. Glaciers: the Work of Ice. Understanding the Earth System.2nd ed. 3 March 1997. Web site: http://www.uh.edu/~jbutler/physical/chapter15.html.July 29, 1998.

Reed, D. L. “Conflicts with Civilization” in Mule and Black-tailed Deer of North America. O. C.Wallmo, ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1981.

Rieman and Apperson, 1989.

Rieman and McIntyre, 1993 and 1996.

Rothrock, Glen. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. North Idaho RegionalOffice. Phase I Diagnostic and Feasibility Analysis Cocolalla Lake, Bonner County,Idaho. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1995.

--- and David T. Mosier. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. North IdahoRegional Office. Phase I Diagnostic Analysis Priest Lake, Bonner County, Idaho, 1993-1995. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1997.

Sandpoint, City of. Little Sand Creek Municipal Watershed Management Plan.

Sandpoint.com. K&K Fishing Derby. Web site: http://www.sandpoint.com/entertainment/kkderby.asp

Schloss, Bob. Army Corps of Engineers, Albeni Falls Dam. Personal communication.

Simpson, Claude and Catherine. North of the Narrows. Moscow: University Press of Idaho,1981.

Sincock, J.R. Back Bay - Currituck Sound Data Report. Waterfowl studies, Vol. 2. U.S. FishWildl. Serv., Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. 1966.

Skille, Jack. Water Quality Specialist. State of Idaho, Department of Environmental Quality. 17 August 1998.

Soltero and Hall. 1985.


Stalmaster, M.V. and J.R. Newman. 1978. Behavioral Responses of Wintering Bald Eagles toHuman Activity. J. Wildlife Manage. 42(3):506-513.

State of Idaho. Department of Commerce. County Profiles of Idaho, Bonner County.

---. Department of Commerce. Web site: http://www.idoc.state.id.us/

---. Department of Environmental Quality. 303(d) list. 1998.

---. Department of Environmental Quality. Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Sub-Basin Assessment andTotal Maximum Daily Loads. Coeur d’Alene, ID. March 2001.

---. Department of Environmental Quality. North Idaho Regional Office. Database and statisticson rivers and streams in North Idaho. Coeur d’Alene, ID. 1993.

---. Department of Fish and Game. 1996–2000 Fisheries Management Plan. Web site:http://www.state.id.us/fishgame/drain1.htm#pdo

---. Department of Fish and Game. Idaho Fish and Game. Web site:http://www.state.id.us/fishgame/fishgame.html.

---. Department of Fish and Game. Idaho’s Water Birds: The Colony Nesters. Non-gameWildlife Leaflet 2. Boise, ID. 1987.

---. Department of Fish and Game. Nongame Wildlife Program. Web site:http://www2.state.id.us/fishgame/info/nongame/nongame.htm.

---. Department of Fish and Game. Sensitive Wildlife Habitat Map.

---.Department of Water Resources. Web site: http://www.idwr.state.id.us/idwr/planpol/techserv/resinfo/gis.htm

Thurow. 1988.

Tourtlotte, Greg. Regional Supervisor. State of Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Letter toBonner County Planning Department, 16 April 1999.

---. Regional Supervisor. State of Idaho. Department of Fish and Game. Letter to Bonner CountyPlanning Department, 29 May 1996.

---. Regional Supervisor. State of Idaho, Department of Fish and Game. Correspondenceregarding Potential Wildlife Impacts and Mitigation Associated with Rural Developmentin Bonner County, Idaho, 29 May 1996.

Traeumer, Drea. State Climate Services. Engineering and Physics Department, University ofIdaho. E-mail interview. 07 August 1998.


Trost, C. H. The Status and Distribution of Colonial Waterbirds in Northern Idaho and SelectedSpecies in Southern Idaho 1994. Idaho Fish and Game Nongame Wildlife Program. 1994.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Birds of Bonner & Boundary Counties Idaho, A CooperativeEffort by Bonner-Boundary Birders and the Sandpoint Ranger District. U.S.D.A.publication R1-89-34, 1989.

---. Forest Service. Forest Statistics Bonner County, Idaho. Northern Rocky Mountain Forest andRange Experiment Station, Missoula Montana, 1937.

---. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). 1992 Census of Agriculture. Web site:http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/

---. Natural Resources Conservation Service ( NRCS). Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area,Idaho. November 1982.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Regions 8 and 10: State of Montana, State of Idaho, andState of Washington. Clark Fork-Pend Oreille Basin Water Quality Study - A Summaryof Findings and a Management Plan. Seattle, WA. 1993.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. Portland, OR.

---. 1993. Grizzly Bear Recovery Plan.

---. 1994. Recovery Plan for the Selkirk Mountain Woodland Caribou.

---. 2000. Proposal to Delist the Bald Eagle, A Summary.

---. Web site: http://www.r1.fws.gov.

U.S. Geological Survey. Pend Oreille River Basin. 1235500 Pend Oreille River at Newport, ID.Database on Discharge Outflows 1991-1997.

---. Pend Oreille River Basin. 12392000 Clark Fork at Whitehorse Rapids, near Cabinet, ID.Database on Discharge Outflows 1991-1997.

---. Pend Oreille River Basin. 12395000 Priest River near Priest River. Database on DischargeOutflows 1991-1997.

University of Montana. Idaho’s Forest Products Industry: A Descriptive Analysis 1979–1996.Missoula, MT.

Vogel, W.O. 1989. Response of Deer to Density and Distribution of Housing in Montana. Wildl.Soc. Bull. 17(4):406-413.


Vos, D.K., R.A. Ryder, and W.D. Graul. 1985. Response of Breeding Great Blue Herons toHuman Disturbance in North Central Colorado. Colonial Waterbirds 8(1):13-22.

Wakkinen, Wayne. Idaho Department of Fish and Game. E-mail correspondence to BonnerCounty Planning Department. 17 February, 2000.

Western Regional Climate Center. Desert Research Institute Atmospheric Sciences Center at theUniversity and Community College System of Nevada. Reno, NV. Web site:http://wrcc.sage.dri.edu/. 6 August 1998.

Wilson, IDL.

Wolfe, M.L. “Habitat Changes and Management” in Big Game of North America: Ecology andManagement. J.L. Schmidt and D.L. Gilbert, eds. Harrisburg, PA: Stockpole Books,1980.

Young, William. Geologist. United States Geological Service. E-mail and interview. 07 August1998.

Zimmerman, 1953, as cited by Jahn, L.R., and R.A. Hunt. Duck and Coot Ecology andManagement in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Conservation Department, Technical Bulletin 33.Madison, WI. 1964.

Documents

Natural Resources Component Bonner County ...Fork watershed is the largest sub-unit of the Clark Fork–Pend Oreille research area, comprising nearly 90 percent of the Clark Fork–Pend