Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report: Appendices B-E 2016 · Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report: Appendices B-E 2016 . Greater Sandpoint Area Greenprint Model Bonner Goal

Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report:

Appendices B-E

2016

Greater Sandpoint Area

Greenprint Model

Bonner

Goal Criteria Criteria Weights Methodology Data(Description, Date) Data Source

Improve Water Quality

Preserve areas with natural and native vegetation along all waterbodies

15% High priority (5) is given to all natural and native vegetation 500 feet from all waterbodies and wetlands. Cultivated cropland, pasture/hay, and developed lands are not prioritized.

LandcoverWetlandsStreams and Waterbodies

US Geological Survey National GAP Land Cover US Fish and Wild Service National Wetlands InventoryUS Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

Protect areas outside sewer districts and drinking water service areas

5% High priority (5) is given to all lands outside existing sewer and drinking water service areas, outside areas zoned for development.

Zoned for Development: ALPINE VILLAGE (AV); COMMERCIAL (C); INDUSTRIAL (I); SUBURBAN (S); RURAL 10 (R-10); RURAL 5 (R-5); RURAL SERVICE CENTER (RSC)

Not Zoned for Development: AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY 10 (A/F-10); AGRICULTURAL/FORESTRY 20 (A/F-20); FOREST 40 (F); RECREATION (REC)

Sewer DistrictsWater DistrictsZoning

Bonner County

Protect riparian buffers and other waters 14% High priority (5) is given to waterbodies, wetlands, and riparian buffers. The following buffer sizes were adopted from the Bonner County Planning Department's Site Plan Requirements:

Lakes, ponds, wetlands, and intermittent streams = 40 ft. bufferRivers and perennial streams = 75 ft. buffer

Streams and WaterbodiesWetlands

US Geological Survey National Hydrography DatasetUS Fish and Wild Service National Wetlands Inventory

Protect headwater streams 16% High priority (5) is assigned to headwater streams. The headwater streams are buffered by 75 ft. per the Bonner County Planning Department's Site Planning Requirements.

Streams (with Stream Order) Horizon Systems Corporation / US Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

Protect steep slopes 5% Steeper slopes are given priority. A natural breaks reclassification method was used to determine priority slopes:

High priority (5) = greater than 13% slopeMedium to High priority (4) = 9 - 13% slopeMedium priority (3) = 5.5 - 9% slopeMedium to Low priority (2) = 3 - 5.5% slopeLow priority (2) = greater than 0 - 3% slope

10 meter Digital Elevation Model US Geological Survey

Protect soils susceptible to erosion 5% Prioritize* erodible soils using the SSURGO "K-factor", which is an estimated value of soil erosion. The soil erodibility factor (K-factor) is a quantitative description of the inherent erodibility of a particular soil; it is a measure of the susceptibility of soil particles to detachment and transport by rainfall and runoff.

High priority (5) = 0.37, 0.43, 0.49, 0.55, 0.64 (K-factor)Medium to High priority (4) = 0.28, 0.32Medium priority (3) = 0.10, 0.20

Data doesn't include all of the study area, mostly USFS lands aren't included.

*Thresholds adopted from the Lake Arlington & Lake Lewisville Greenprint Water Quality Analysis.

Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic database

Protect floodplains 5% High priority (5) is given to the 100 year flood zone, and 500 year flood zone. Flood zones Federal Emergency Management Agency

Greater Sandpoint Area GreenprintModel CriteriaAugust 4, 2015


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Preserve intact riparian zones 20% Identify and ranks streams that have been identified as temperature impaired with loss of riparian community at some level of degree on the creek as a whole. Shade targets have been established for all reaches on these creeks, which is based on the potential natural vegetation that could exist at each reach of the stream. Reaching potential natural vegetation is the desired state for these streams.

High priority (5) is given to stream buffers that are at their potential for natural vegetation, or at it's desired state of riparian vegetation. Moderate to high priority (4) is assigned to buffers that are within 90% or greater of their potential for natural vegetation. Moderate priority (3) is assigned to stream buffers that are within 70-90% state of natural vegetation. Moderate to Low priority (2) is given to stream buffers that are within 50-70% state of natural vegetation. Low priority (1) is given to streams that are within 2-50% state of natural vegetation.

Streams area buffered using the US Forest Service Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) recommendation of 300 feet from perennial fish-bearing streams.

Temperature impaired streams with loss of riparian community

Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (Kristin Larson)

Protect water supply 15% This criterion identifies subwatersheds that are important to proctect due to their ability to produce surface drinking water and because of the demand for water supplies on the subwatershed.

From the USFS Forest to Faucets model documentation: The final model of surface drinking water importance combines the drinking water protection model (PRn), capturing the flow of water and water demand, with Brown et al’s (2008) model of mean annual water supply (Qn). The values generated by the drinking water protection model are simply multiplied by the results of the model of mean annual water supply to create the final surface drinking water importance index.


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Provide Recreation

Encourage a variety of types of recreation with a focus on access to streams and lakes

20% Public lands, parks, and trails are buffered by a 1/4 mile. Waterbodies and streams are buffered by 500 feet. Where the water feature buffers and land feature buffers overlap high priority (5) is assigned. Medium-high priority (4) is assigned where there is no overlap between water and land feature buffers. Wetlands have been removed from the priority areas.

Public Lands (Parcels)ParksTrailsWetlandsWaterbodies

Bonner County

US Fish and Wild Service National Wetlands InventoryUS Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

Provide better shoreline access from local roads and trails

25% This criterion identifies underserved areas along the lake shoreline that are accessible by road and/or trails. Parks and boat facilities are buffered by a 1/2 mile to determine current shoreline access "Service Areas". "Gaps" are identified as locations along the lake shoreline with no current shoreline access provided by parks and boat facility service areas. Within these gaps, the model gives high priority (5) to near-by access via road or trail.

Data Note: Beau Crawford is updating lake access points and should be finished at the end of the summer. We can use the statewide dataset in the meantime.

Lake Pend OreilleTrailsParksBoat ramps and facilities

US Geological Survey National Hydrography DatasetBonner County

Provide solitude opportunities along the shoreline for boaters

15% This criterion identifies underserved areas along the lake shoreline that are a 1/4 mile from roads and highways. Parks and boat facilities are buffered by a 1/2 mile to determine current shoreline access "Service Areas". "Gaps" are identified as locations along the lake shoreline with no current shoreline access provided by parks and boat facility service areas. Within these gaps, the model gives high priority (5) to shoreline that is 1/4 mile from road and highways.

DestinationsCommon PlacesParksTrailsBoat ramps and facilities

Bonner County

Provide better hunting and fishing access 5% This criterion prioritizes lands that are in close proximity to the "Access Yes" properties or public lands that have the same landcover types as the Caribou Creek Drainage and Trout Creek Drainage from the Idaho Fish & Game "Access Yes" database.

High priority (5) = 0 feet to 1/4 mileMedium to High priority (4) = 1/4 mile - 1/2 mileMedium priority (3) = 1/2 mile - 1 mileMedium to Low priority (2) = 1 mile - 2 milesLow priority (1) = > 2 miles

Caribou Creek Drainage and Trout Creek Drainage private properties are primarily forestland and have big game, upland game, and small game. The parcel descriptions are 106- Productivity forest land and 512-Land Resid rural tract vac.

Idaho Fish & Game “Access Yes” database of landowners who allow access hunting and fishing accessLandcover

Idaho Fish and Game

US Geological Survey National GAP Land Cover

Improve disabled access to lake Reference this report: United State Access Board, May 2014, Summary of accessibility standards for outdoor facilities.

Preserve commercial areas that provide open space recreational opportunities

5% Commercial areas are buffered by 1/2 mile and given high priority (5) to preserve open space qualities. Western Pleasure (dude ranch)Taubers (Angus farm, frisbee golf)Schweitzer (ski area)Hickey FarmsCaribou Mountain Lodge

The Trust for Public Land

Prioritize and expand existing and proposed trails 30% Existing and proposed trails are buffered by 200 feet and given high priority (5) if within a trail system. Moderate prioirity (3) is given to buffered existing and proposed trails not within a trail system.

TrailsTrail Systems

Bonner County


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Protect Wildlife Habitat

Protect streams and riparian corridors and other waters and wetlands

5% High priority (5) is given to all natural and native vegetation 500 feet from all waterbodies and wetlands. Cultivated cropland, pasture/hay, and developed lands are not prioritized.

LandcoverWetlandsWaterbodies

US Geological Survey National GAP Land Cover US Fish and Wild Service National Wetlands InventoryUS Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

Protect bird habitat 5% Important Bird Areas are given high priority (5). Overlap between three species habitats is given high priority (5). Overlap between two species habitats is given moderate to high priority (4). Areas with one species habitat are given moderate priority (3).

Important Bird Areas, Flammulated Owl summer habitat, Black Tern summer habitat, Western Grebe summer habitat, and Bald Eagle winter/summer habitat, and Harlequin duck summer habitat

Harlequin Duck; Bald Eagle; Western Grebe; Black Tern; Flammulated Owl - Least Concern

Important Bird AreasFlammulated Owl HabitatBald Eagle HabitatWestern Grebe HabitatHarlequin Duck Habitat

National Audubon SocietyUS Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program

Protect fish habitat 5% Streams with Bull Trout are buffered by 500 feet and given high priority (5). Streams with salmonid spawning or cold water aquatic life are buffered by 500 feet and given moderate to high priority (4).

Bull trout Critical Habitat305(B) streams

US Fish and Wild ServiceEnvironmental Protection Agency

Protect habitat for other wildlife 5% High priority (5) is given to elk summer/winter range and mule deer winter range. Medium high priority (4) is given to elk winter range and mule deer summer range. Medium priority (3) is given to elk summer range and mule deer limited range.

Elk summer and winter rangeMule Deer HabitatWild Turkey summer and winter range

Rocky Mountain Elk FoundationUtah State UniversityUS Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program

Protect endangered species habitat 10% High priority (5) is assigned to the grizzly bear recovery zone. Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone US Forest Service

Protect working lands that provide wildlife habitat 5% Working lands are prioritized using the highest conservation value between all of the criteria in the Protect Wildlife Habitat goal.

Parcels Bonner County

Protect important areas for wildlife movement 25% High priority (5) is given to wildlife connectivity zones and wildlife linkages along state and federal highways.

Metadata for the wildlife connectivity zones can be found here: http://www.wafwachat.org/data/metadata/idaho

Wildlife Connectivity ZonesHighway Wildlife Linkages

Western Association of Fish and Wildlife AgenciesIdaho Fish and Game

Protect terrestrial species of concern 20% High priority (5) is given to hexagons with known observations of federally listed species (Endangered or Threatened), G1, or G2 species that occupy limiting or essential habitat (e.g., breeding locations, seasonal aggregation sites for local or long-distance migrants, other key habitats).

High priority (5) is given to hexagons with known observations of federal Candidate species or G3 species that occupy limiting or essential habitat (e.g., breeding locations, seasonal aggregation sites for local or long-distance migrants, other key habitats).

Moderate to high priority (4) is given to hexagons with known observations of all other species of greatest conservation need (SGCN) that occupy limiting or essential habitat (e.g., breeding locations, seasonal aggregation sites for local or long-distance migrants, other key habitats).

Moderate priority (3) is given to hexagons with known observations of any SGCN utilizing habitat opportunistically (e.g., foraging, dispersed winter habitat), or General Sage-Grouse Habitat.

Moderate to low (2) and low (1) priority is given to SGCN modeled habitat richness.

Metadata for the wildlife connectivity zones can be found here: http://www.wafwachat.org/data/metadata/idaho

Terrestrial Species of Concern, 2013 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Protect aquatic species of concern 20% High priority (5) is given to hexagons with any of the following species present: Bonneville Cutthroat Trout, Bull Trout, Chinook Salmon, White Sturgeon (Snake River population), and Redband Trout (Columbia River Basin and Snake River Basin populations). These species are relatively widespread in distribution and economically important.

Metadata for the aquatic species of concern can be found here: http://www.wafwachat.org/data/metadata/idaho

Aquatic Species of Concern, 2013 Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Preserve Working Lands

Concentrate development away from working lands 3% Large contiguous working lands are given high priority.

Working lands include irrigated agriculture land, non-irrigated agriculture land, meadow land, dry grazing land, productivity forest land, and bare forest land.

ParcelsMunicipal Boundary

Bonner County

Protect wildlife corridors and greenbelts 11% Wetlands on working lands within a quarter mile of streams are given high priority (5). Natural and native vegetation on agriculture lands within a quarter mile of streams are given moderate-high priority (4).

Working lands include irrigated agriculture land, non-irrigated agriculture land, meadow land, dry grazing land, productivity forest land, and bare forest land.

WetlandsStreamsParcelsLandcover

US Fish and Wild Service National Wetlands InventoryUS Geological Survey National Hydrography DatasetBonner CountyUS Geological Survey National GAP Land Cover

Preserve ranchlands 15% Meadow land and dry grazing land are given high priority (5). Parcels Bonner County

Preserve croplands 15% Irrigated agricultural land and non-irrigated agricultural land are given high priority (5). Parcels Bonner County

Preserve timber lands 15% Productive forestlands and bare forestland are given high priority (5). Parcels Bonner County

Protect water availability and quality for irrigation 11% Streams and rivers that provide water for Irrigated agricultural land and non-irrigated agricultural land are buffered by 500 feet and given high priority (5).

ParcelsCatchmentsStreams

Bonner CountyUS Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset

Protect working land viewsheds 7% Views from Lake Pend Oreille and municipalities are given high priority (5). 30 meter Digital Elevation ModelViewshed points

US Geological Survey The Trust for Public Land

Protect infrastructure that supports working lands 3% Working lands or mineral leases/permits that are intersected by paved or gravel roads are given high priority (5).

ParcelsRoadsMineral leases/permits

Bonner County

Idaho Department of Lands

Preserve soils suitable for farmland 20% High priority (5) is given to prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, prime farmland if drained or protected from flooding, prime farmland if irrigated, and farmland of statewide importance if drained or protected from flooding, or irrigated.

Metadata about soils can be found here:http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/ak/soils/surveys/?cid=nrcs142p2_035988

Soils Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Geographic database


Greenprint Model

Bonner



Model Overlays

Study Area

ParcelsProtected LandsStreams and WaterbodiesMajor RoadsImagery"

Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Current Conditions Report THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

March 2016 1 Greenprint

Greater Sandpoint Greenprint: Current Conditions Report

This current conditions report summarizes the history of the study area, demographic trends, economic trends, land use, agriculture, recreation, natural resources, and existing local planning efforts. It will help provide context for the Greater Sandpoint Greenprint and the Bonner County Conceptual Trail Plan.

1. Introduction Note: For the purposes of this report, the Cities of Sandpoint, Kootenai, Dover, Ponderay, Hope, and East Hope some surrounding areas of unincorporated Bonner County are referred to as “Greater Sandpoint.”

Greater Sandpoint in Bonner County, Idaho offers beautiful scenery, rich natural resources, exceptional recreational opportunities, and unique access to arts and culture. These amenities have attracted a large number of tourists and new residents in recent years. Sandpoint has been called “The Best Small Town in the West” by Sunset Magazine; “One of 20 Dream Towns” by Outside Magazine; “The Next Great Place” by USA Today; one of the “10 Coolest Mountain Towns” by Men’s Journal; and one of “The Top 10 Places to Telecommute” by Forbes Magazine.

While increasing numbers of tourists and new residents are helping to grow the local economy, the communities of Greater Sandpoint want to encourage sustainable economic development and retain the livability and spectacular scenery that make it such a special place to live and visit. This depends on protecting the small town character and natural and recreational resources that are central to local quality of life. The Greenprint is a strategic conservation plan intended to guide future investments in trails, parks, and open spaces in order to help Greater Sandpoint promote growth, while protecting the area’s most valuable places.

2. Study Area Stretching across Idaho’s panhandle, Bonner County is known for its towering mountains, trout‐filled streams, and shimmering lakes. The County is surrounded by mountains – the Selkirk Mountains, Bitterroot Mountains and Cabinet Mountains. In the midst of these 7,000‐foot peaks lie rivers, lakes and streams including the Clark Fork River, Pend Oreille River, Priest River, Priest Lake, and Lake Pend Oreille. Kootenai and Shoshone Counties touch Bonner County's southern border. Boundary County to the north borders both Bonner County and Canada.

The Greater Sandpoint Greenprint study area (shown in Figure 1 in the Final Greenprint Report) includes nearly 360,000 acres surrounding the northern and western shores of Lake Pend Oreille. There are nine cities within Bonner County: Sandpoint, Ponderay, Dover, Kootenai, East Hope, Hope, Clark Fork, Oldtown, and Priest River. Of these, all but the last three (Clark Fork, Oldtown, and Priest River) border the northern shores of Lake Pend Oreille and are included in the study area. Sagle, an unincorporated community five miles south of the Sandpoint, is also included. The study area contains 14,800 acres of state owned land and 80,500 acres of federally owned land.

Regional History

Native peoples thrived along the shores of Lake Pend Oreille for thousands of years before fur traders and surveyors came to the area in the early 19th Century (Plaster et al. 2016). Greater Sandpoint was originally occupied by the Salish Tribes, including the Kootenai and Pend d’Oreilles (Kalispel) Tribes. The name Pend d’Oreille means “hangs from ears” in French and possibly refers to earrings worn by early


Greenprint 2 March 2016

Native Americans in the area (Pritzker 2000). The Kalispel Tribe’s ancestral lands extend across Priest Lake and Lake Pend Oreille, up Pend Oreille River into Canada, and east into Montana. Most of today’s Kalispel Indians live on a reservation on the Pend Oreille River in Usk, Washington. Into the 1930s, annual gatherings of Kalispel, Kootenai, and other tribes were held in Sandpoint (Plaster et al. 2016).

In the early 1800s, the region began being explored for fur hunting and for trade routes. The area was a thoroughfare for gold rush prospectors beginning in 1866 (Plaster et al. 2016). By the 1880s, with the establishment of the Northern Pacific Railroad, the current towns of Greater Sandpoint began to appear. Easy access to transcontinental rail lines led to a booming timber industry in the early 20th Century (Love 1996). In 1907, Bonner County was officially established. During World War II, 300,000 troops passed through Farragut Naval Training Station at Bayview. As recently as the late 1950s, nearly 40 person of Bonner County’s workforce was employed harvesting and processing timber (Plaster 1996).

Railroad corridors and rail traffic continue to play a big role in the Greater Sandpoint area. There has been a great deal of public concern expressed in recent years, particularly about trains hauling oil through Bonner County to ports on the Pacific Coast (Hughes 2015).

City of Sandpoint

Sandpoint, the county seat for Bonner County, was established as a village in 1901, and became a city in 1907 (Forest Service 2016). Sandpoint is the largest city in Bonner County and is also the largest town in close proximity to Boundary County and northwestern Montana. The town was first settled in 1880 with the opening of a general store and early surveying by the Northern Pacific Railroad. David Thompson, an agent and surveyor for the North West Company), named the city after the peninsula or “point of sand” where Sand Creek empties into Lake Pend Oreille (Idaho State Historical Society 1973, Sandpoint BID 2012).

Today, Sandpoint's downtown is dotted with art galleries, local businesses, coffee shops and a variety of bars and restaurants. The 1906 Cedar Street Bridge is now a two‐level, solar heated, shopping promenade. The Panida Theater, a 1927 Mission revival‐style gem rescued and restored by the community, is the heart of the downtown and consistently draws crowds to its concerts, film festivals and other shows. Among many other businesses, Sandpoint hosts the headquarters for Litehouse Foods and for Quest Aircraft.

City of Ponderay

Ponderay is two miles northeast of the Sandpoint. While it is located along the northern shore of Lake Pend Oreille, much of its access to the lake is cut off by railroad tracks. Calling itself the “Little City with a Big Future,” Ponderay is a commercial center that has attracted a number of large businesses (including Staples, Petco, and Home Depot) (City of Ponderay 2016). The city is also known as the gateway to Schweitzer Ski Resort. Ponderay has developed around a residential area located between State Highway 200 and the BNSF Railroad (City of Ponderay 2016).

City of Dover

Dover, incorporated in 1989, is one of the state’s youngest cities. Today’s downtown Dover was first planned in 1908 and named “Welty,” after the President of the Dover Lumber Company. Timber and mills remained an important influence on this area until the late 1980s, when the mills moved out of the town due to dwindling profits (City of Dover 2013). Recent population growth has coincided with the



incorporation of the city and the development of water and wastewater capabilities (City of Dover 2013).

City of Kootenai

Kootenai was founded as a sawmill town in 1900. It was incorporated as a village in 1908 – at which time it had a larger population than Sandpoint (City of Kootenai 2015). In the early days of Kootenai, it housed the division office of the Northern Pacific Railroad. Kootenai became a city in 1967. Currently Kootenai is largely residential. The area still has two active railroad corridors and a wood pellet manufacturing facility. Coldwater Creek, a clothing company, had its headquarters in Kootenai until it closed in 2014. Direct access to Lake Pend Oreille from Kootenai is limited by the BNSF Railroad.

3. Demographics Bonner County’s population has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. In 2000, Bonner County ranked as the sixth fastest growing county in Idaho. In 2010, Bonner County had population of 40,877, which represented three percent of Idaho’s total population (US Census Bureau 2016). From 1970 to 2000, the County’s population grew over 130 percent (Bonner County 2013b). Between 2010 and 2013 Bonner County’s population decreased slightly (by 0.4 percent); however, the County’s population is expected to reach 51,073 people by 2025 (US Census 2016, Bonner County 2013b).

Population growth rates between 2000 and 2010 in Bonner County are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Population Growth Rates in Bonner County (U.S. Census Data)

Area 2000 Population 2010 Population Growth Rate (2000–2010)

Bonner County 36,835 40,877 10.8%

Sandpoint 6,835 7,365 7.8%

Ponderay 638 1,137 78.2%

Kootenai 441 678 53.7%

Dover 332 556 67.5%

Hope 79 86 8.9%

East Hope 200 210 5.0%

Bonner County, like Idaho generally, has a relatively homogeneous population. Over 94 percent of County residents identify as white, 2.3 percent as Hispanic, and 1.5 percent as “other” (Idaho Demographics 2016). Almost 18 percent of the population is over 65 years of age, and over 60 percent is between the ages of 18 and 64 (CensusViewer 2016). Bonner County's population density of 23.6 people per square mile is slightly higher than the state’s average of 19. Idaho’s overall population density is very low; it ranks 44th among U.S. States (US Census Bureau 2016). The current median household income in Bonner County is $41,140, with an expected growth rate of 3.24 percent over the next five years (ID HomeTown Locator 2016).

4. Economy

From its roots in lumber, Bonner County has grown and diversified its economy. Economic drivers include tourism, forest products, and light manufacturing.

Greater SanTHE TRUST FO

Greenprint

Employ

As seen inare major Table 2. B

AccordingCounty, Irelatively diverse another simworkforce

The loss oeconomy,dropped fdeal of loaddition tvery comEconomicCounty.

ndpoint GreenprOR PUBLIC LAND

yment

n Table 2 belr sources of e

Bonner Count

g to a recentdaho are vibremote areand its residenmilar areas ine.

of Coldwater , including thfor the first tocal economito strong toumitted to stacs 2015). Figu

rint Current Con

ow, manufacmployment.

ty Employme

t study by Hebrant and resa” (Headwatents are passion terms of ac

Creek, a woe loss of 340 time in recenc momentumurism and timaying in the aures 2 and 3

nditions Report

cturing, leisur

ent and Avera

eadwaters Ecsilient, with ers 2015). Henate about thccess to mar

men’s clothinjobs (Sowa 2

nt memory inm in manufacmber sectors area, there is below show

4

re and hospit

age Annual W

conomics, “tha more diveadwaters nothe area’s excrkets, interne

ng retailer, in2014). Enrollmn 2014‐2015 cturing, healt(Headwaters a strong locatrends in em

tality, and tra

Wages

he communiterse economytes that whilcellent qualityet speeds, an

n 2014 had a ment in the La(Rasmusson th care, aero2015). In paal culture of mployment a

ade, utilities a

ties and ecoy than one we Bonner Coy of life, the Cnd the educa

significant imake Pend Ore2014). Howeospace, and sart because mentrepreneund personal

Marc

and transport

nomies of Bowould expectounty’s econoCounty lags bational level

mpact on theeille School Dever, there issoftware desmany residentrship (Headwincome in Bo

ch 2016

tation

onner t in a omy is behind of its

e local District great ign in ts are waters onner

March 2016

Housin

The Great2000s. SpAgency). According$227,900 with an amulti‐unit25.9 perce

ng

ter Sandpointpeculative hoHowever, thg to the US Cwhich is $60

average houst structures, sent (City Data

t area experieome construche current hCensus, the m0,000 more thehold size ofsuch as aparta, Bonner Cou

enced a signiction also inousing vacanmedian valuehan the Idahof 2.3 peopletments, is jusunty).

Grea

5

ficant increascreased durincy rate is 3e of owner‐oo average of (US Census Bst 11 percent

ater Sandpoint G

se in second‐ng this time33 percent (occupied hou$167,100. ThBureau 2016in Bonner Co

Greenprint CurrTH

‐home constre (Bonner CoID HomeTowsing unit frohere were 246). The rate oounty while t

rent Conditions HE TRUST FOR PUBL

Gre

ruction in theommunity Hown Locator 2m 2008‐2012,466 housingof housing unthe national r

Report LIC LAND

eenprint

e early ousing 2015). 2 was g units nits in rate is

Greater SanTHE TRUST FO

Greenprint

5. LanBonner Cois publiclyPriest LakBonner Co Table 3. L

6. AgrBonner C(Bonner CimportantThe Counvalue of c

Loss of faAgricultur– in just femploymCounty sin

Since thealmost haCensus 20Figure 4 Agricultur

1 The Ida

forestsadmini

ndpoint GreenprOR PUBLIC LAND

nd Use a

ounty covers y owned, a mke State Foreounty.

Landownersh

riculture

County’s agriCounty 2013t. The primarnty ranks firstcrop sales in t

armland, partre, farmed lanfive years betent betweennce 2004.

mid‐1990s, alf of the 686012). Ninety‐sfor Bonner re/Forest Lan

aho Panhandle: Coeur d’Alensters land in te

rint Current Con

nd Own

1,920 squaremajority of west (Bonner

ip in Bonner

e

cultural secta). Timberlanry crops growt in the statehe County wa

ticularly croplnd in Bonner tween 2007 an 1991 and 2

there has be6 farms in Bosix percent oCounty’s mad, and Remot

e National Forne, Kaniksu, anen counties an

nditions Report

ership

e miles. Of thhich is compCounty 2002

County (Bon

or plays a knd dominatewn in Bonnere in sales of as $6.1 millio

land, is a serCounty decreand 2012. Th2011. There

een an increaonner Countyf the farms inap of projectte Agriculture

rests (IPNF) wed St. Joe Natiod three states:

6

is, nine perceosed of the 2). Table 3 s

ner County 2

key role ecoes Bonner Cor County are ornamental n and the val

ious issue in eased by 15 pe loss of crophas also bee

ase in small‐y reported san the Countyted land usee/Forest Land

ere establisheonal Forests, w: Idaho, Monta

ent is water. SIdaho Panhahows the br

2002)

onomically, eounty, but livwheat, oats, trees (Bonnelue of livestoc

the County. percent – fropland has been a steady d

‐acreage farmales of less ty are family‐rue, including Ad.

d in 1973 to awhich covered aana, and Wash

Sixty percentndle Nationareakdown of

nvironmentavestock and barley, and er County 20ck sales was $

According tom 94,380 acreen tied to a decline in fo

ming in Bonnthan $2,500 (un (Bonner CAgriculture/Fo

administer thra combined 2.ington (IPNF 2

Marc

t of Bonner Cal Forests1 anlandownersh

lly, and cultcropland aregrass‐legume13a). In 2012$4 million.

o the US Censres to 80,623 loss in agricuorestry jobs i

er County. T(USDA AgricuCounty 2013aorest Land,

ree existing na5 million acres013).

ch 2016

ounty nd the hip in

turally e also e hay. 2, the

sus of acres

ultural n the

Today, ultural ). See Prime

ational s. IPNF

March 2016

Figure 4. B

Bonner County Compreheensive Plan Of

Grea

7

fficial Projecte

ater Sandpoint G

ed Land Use

Greenprint CurrTH

Map

rent Conditions HE TRUST FOR PUBL

Gre

Report LIC LAND

eenprint



7. Recreation Note: There is a separate simultaneous effort being led by Idaho Conservation League, The Trust for Public Land, and the Bonner County Trail Mix Committee to develop a County‐wide Trail Plan that builds on a draft plan developed by the County in 2014.

Bonner County has a huge variety of opportunities for hiking, biking, skiing, horseback riding, camping, boating (and other water sports), ATV and snowmobile riding, hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing. There are over 660 miles of existing recreational and commuting trails and routes in Bonner County, and the 2016 Bonner County Trail Plan (referenced above) is proposing the development of an additional nearly 490 miles. In addition to trails, Bonner County has ten campgrounds, five golf courses, and 2,900 acres of skiing at Schweitzer Mountain Resort (Bonner County EDC 2016). Sandpoint has eight city parks (including City Beach and the Baldy Shooting Range) covering 107 acres (Bonner County 2002). While Lake Pend Oreille and other warm weather opportunities dominate summer recreation, Schweitzer Mountain Resort plays a major role in drawing winter tourism (Idaho Dept of Labor 2016).

8. Natural Resources The climate in Bonner County is characterized by an inland Northwestern continental Mediterranean climate with warm, dry summers and cold, snowy winters. July is the warmest month with average highs reaching 81 degrees, while January is the coldest month with average lows reaching 20 degrees in Sandpoint. Bonner County gets an average of 28 inches of rain and 64 inches of snow per year and has an average of 174 sunny days (Sperling’s Best Places 2016). As noted earlier, Bonner County is surrounded by mountains – the Selkirk Mountains, Bitterroot Mountains and Cabinet Mountains.

Water Resources

Water dominates much of Bonner County. Over nine percent of Bonner County is covered by water – the largest percentage of any county in Idaho (Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce). Lake Pend Oreille, Idaho’s largest lake, is in the center of the County, and Priest Lake is in the northwestern corner. There are also three major rivers in Bonner County. Priest River drains from Priest Lake. Pend Oreille River drains out of Lake Pend Oreille on its western edge, and Clark Fork River drains into Lake Pend Oreille from the east. The Pend Oreille River is crossed by the Long Bridge from Highway 95.

Lake Pend Oreille

Lake Pend Oreille covers 85,960 acres and has 111 miles of shoreline. It is 43 miles long and over 1,150 feet deep. Lake Pend Oreille is the fifth deepest lake in the United States (Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper 2016). The Clark Fork River contributes about 92 percent of the annual inflow to the lake (Idaho DEQ 2004). Lake Pend Oreille is important for drinking water supply, habitat and spawning, and recreation and scenic views (Idaho DEQ 2004). Lake Pend Oreille is home to many aquatic species, including bull trout, which is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act. Much of the lake’s shore is still only accessible by water (Plaster et al. 2016).

Lake Pend Oreille located in the Purcell Trench, an ancient glaciated valley (Plaster et al. 2016, Doughty and Price 2000). Thousands of years ago the Idaho Panhandle was covered with a sheet of ice up to 2,000 feet thick. As the ice melted, it created the enormous Glacial Lake Missoula, which filled western Montana’s valleys; Lake Pend Oreille is a remnant of this glacial lake (Plaster et al. 2016).



Approximately half of the population of Bonner County lives near the north shore of Lake Pend Oreille (Bonner County 2003). There has been a great deal of new residential development within a half mile of the lake shore, and soils in these areas are susceptible to erosion and flooding (Bonner County 2003). Because of increasing levels of nutrient contamination from human activities, Lake Pend Oreille was listed as threatened by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality in 1994 (Idaho DEQ 2004, Idaho DEQ 2009).

In 2009, The Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), received a $650,000 Recovery Act brownfields assessment coalition grant. IDEQ is focusing this assessment on Bonner County, particularly a two‐mile stretch on the Lake Pend Oreille shoreline (US EPA 2009). This area has been contaminated by extractive industries as far back as the smelting, refining, and lumber milling operations of the 1890s (Idaho DEQ 2009).

In 2003, the Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, Priest Lake and Priest River Commission was formed in part to help manage water levels in Lake Pend Oreille. The top 11.5 feet of Lake Pend Oreille’s water level are controlled by the Albeni Falls Dam, which is managed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Power generated by the dam is sold by the Bonneville Power Administration. (Lakes Commission 2016)

Watersheds

The study area is part of the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Watershed, a large watershed spanning three states (Montana, Idaho, and Washington). In the Clark Fork/Pend Oreille Watershed, there are eight smaller watersheds within the boundaries of Bonner County: the Upper Kootenai, Lower Kootenai, Lower Clark Fork, Pend Oreille Lake, Priest, Pend Oreille, Upper Coeur d’Alene, and Little Spokane. The study area is in the Pend Oreille Lake Watershed. The Little Sand Creek Subwatershed provides drinking water for 90 percent of Sandpoint, and the city is one of the subwatershed’s major landowners. Sandpoint’s first management goal for this watershed is the continued acquisition of land for drinking water protection.

There are 11 community water systems in Bonner County that depend on surface water. Of these, six have been affected by surface water contamination from activities outside their jurisdiction (ICL 2012). There has been some local resistance to using regulatory strategies to protect water quality. In 2012, there was a proposed Watershed Protection Overlay District ordinance for the County, which was subsequently rejected. The Overlay District would have allowed certain cities, such as Sandpoint, to designate watershed protection districts and encourage land use restrictions and source water protection in those areas.

The Bonner Soil and Water Conservation District has a voluntary program called “Lake Assist” that helps Bonner County residents address water quality concerns and reduce pollution (Bonner SWCD 2016). University of Idaho Extension also offers its IDAH2O Master Water Stewards program to train volunteers to protect regional water quality. Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper and the Idaho Conservation League also advocate for improved watershed and lake health.

Forests

Approximately 70 percent of Bonner County is forested. Most of this forest land is part of the Idaho Panhandle National Forests and the Priest Lake State Forest. A wide variety of tree species are found in Bonner County including Douglas fir, ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, western red cedar, western hemlock, western larch, and western white pine (Bonner County 2003). Because of having many residential areas in close proximity to forests, wildfire is a major concern in the County (Bonner County 2012).



Wildlife

The Greenprint study area houses a huge variety of wildlife. National forests in Greater Sandpoint provide habitat for nearly 300 species of birds and 50 species of mammals. Bird species range from the calliope hummingbird to the bald eagle, and mammal species range from the little brown bat to the gray wolf. Local sensitive species include boreal toad, Coeur d’Alene salamander, common loon, harlequin duck, peregrine falcon, flammulated owl, black‐backed woodpecker, Townsend’s big‐eared bat, northern bog lemming, fisher, and wolverine. Local threatened and endangered species include bull trout, grizzly bear, Canada lynx, and woodland caribou.

In addition to the wildlife listed above, mammals in the study area include moose, deer, black bear, mountain lion, mountain goat, and bighorn sheep. Sandpoint is on the eastern edge of the Pacific Flyway and attracts a wide range of seasonal waterfowl. During the winter, waters in the Pend Oreille system may support up to one‐quarter of the entire redhead duck population in the Pacific Flyway. Fish native to Bonner County include westslope cutthroat trout, pygmy whitefish, mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow, and bull trout. (Bonner County 2003)

Fish native to Bonner County include Westlope cutthroat trout, pygmy whitefish, mountain whitefish, northern pikeminnow and bull trout. According to the County, while “Lake Pend Oreille is famous for its Gerrard rainbow (Kamloops); Priest Lake has the record for giant mackinaw; and Lake Coeur d’Alene is famous for cutthroat and chinook. The smaller lakes are home to Bass and all the streams and rivers abound with trout. Bonner County’s fishing resources provide economic, aesthetic and recreational value to the County.” (Bonner County 2003)



9. Planning Context: Relevant Plans and Reports

As an important component of the current conditions report, existing and in‐progress planning efforts are reviewed. The list of plans below includes comprehensive plans, recreation‐related plans, and environmental and watershed management plans.

Comprehensive Plans Bonner County Comprehensive Plan (2013) http://bonnercounty.us/comprehensive‐plan‐2/ Bonner County first adopted a Comprehensive Plan in 1978, and has updated it numerous times since (including adopting a Property Rights component in 2001). The most recent update was completed in 2013. There is extensive background information about the demographics, housing, and economy of the Bonner County and Greater Sandpoint area. One unique component of the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan is the Trail Plan, discussed next. City of Sandpoint Comprehensive Plan (2009) http://cityofsandpoint.com/ComprehensivePlan.asp www.cityofsandpoint.com/Affordable%20Housing/Appendix%20B.pdf The appendices also have a wealth of detail about the city. Unique portions of this report include the identification of lakes, ponds, and potential wetlands areas (accessible at http://cityofsandpoint.com/compplan/2009%20Approved%20Plan/Appendix%20E%20‐%20Wetlands%20Map.pdf). City of Ponderay Comprehensive Plan (2005) www.cityofponderay.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/08/Final‐Comp‐Plan‐All.reduced.pdf The plan seeks to maintain traditional advantages, while avoiding overcrowding, congestion, hazards to health, loss of natural environment, and loss of community, identity, and neighborhoods. There is also a separate Ponderay Visioning Document, which includes graphic representations of the potential future of Ponderay. This includes a vibrant downtown and trail along downtown (which exists today). City of Dover Comprehensive Plan http://cityofdoveridaho.org/downloads/CityOfDover/Miscellanious/City_Comprehensive_Plan.pdf Dover’s Comprehensive Plan is intended to provide general goals and plans for the development of the city. Private property rights are valued, and land use policies and decisions are to be made in a way to provides for necessary activities (commercial, office) as well as to maintain residential areas and preserve natural lands.

Recreation Plans Bonner County Trails Plan (2012) This is a subpart of the Transportation Component of the Bonner County Comprehensive Plan and has not yet been approved by the Bonner County Commission. A Trails Advisory Group was established in 2008 to discuss a new trail plan, and both citizens and community leaders have identified the maintenance and expansion of trails within the county as a priority. Linking people with their local landscapes and ensuring access to trails, connecting various communities, and creating (designated) trails for different types of activities, are two major goals for this effort. This plan sought to inventory the system and identify existing needs in the current trail system. See Section 7 (Recreation) for additional information on an updated Trails Plan being finalized in 2016.



Sandpoint Parks and Recreation Master Plan (2010; updated in 2012) http://www.cityofsandpoint.com/parksrec/PDFs/PRTMasterPlan‐Dec2012.pdf The main goals include providing access to parks as well as improving multi‐modal connectivity between amenities. This plan includes information from community workshops and surveys, and also presents the level of service for parks in the city: “As stated in the City of Sandpoint Development Impact Fee Program/Capital Improvement Plan from 2005, the performance standard for park facilities is 8 acres of parkland per 1000 population. This standard was based on information provided by the Parks and Recreation Director regarding existing conditions and average standards for neighboring cities.” The standards, expected demands, and goals are also presented in this plan. Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail Concept Plan (2010) and Lakeside Sub‐Area Plan (in‐progress) http://pobtrail.org/pend‐doreille‐bay‐trail‐planning‐moves‐to‐next‐phase/ Over the past few years, extensive planning effort, followed by fundraising and implementation was completed for much of the Pend d’Oreille Bay Trail. This plan (the “Concept Plan”) was completed in 2010, and at this point in time, initial acquisitions for the Pend d’Oreille Bay Trail have been completed. Planners are now working on connecting communities at the north end of the trail (such as Ponderay) to the trail. The first step in this process will be developing neighborhood sub‐plans that will determine how and where to give the communities at the north end direct access to the trail and connect the communities with the shoreline. One of the major issues is the contamination along the shore. The City of Ponderay and the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality are working on clean‐up plans. The City of Ponderay and the Friends of the Pend d’Oreille Bay Trail group are currently working on the plan. A Master Trail and Interpretive Plan was developed in 2015 and is available here: http://www.harmonydesigninc.com/uploads/1/7/9/6/17965815/pobt_master_plan_final_‐_small_2015‐1214.pdf. City of Kootenai, Idaho Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (May 2015) http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/app/uploads/2015/07/Kootenai‐Final.pdf The May 2015 Kootenai Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan addresses the local needs of walkers and bikers, the limitations of the existing street network, community outreach, and an action plan for implementing Kootenai's priorities. Other recreation‐related plans in the area include: BLM/State recreational trails plans and a North Idaho Bikeways Plan.



Environment and Watershed Plans Comprehensive State Water Plan (2012) www.idwr.idaho.gov/waterboard/WaterPlanning/Statewaterplanning/PDFs/ADOPTED%20State%20Water%20Plan%202012.pdf The first Idaho State Water Plan was adopted in 1974, and this one (2012) describes beneficial uses of water, conservation strategies, and management ideas. This aim of these components of this plan is to “guide the development, management, and use of the state’s water and related resources.” It also suggests ideas that can be accomplished through “cooperation, conservation, and good management” in order to maintain and improve the state’s economy as well protect the “welfare of its citizens.” One of the main objectives of this plan – in addition to water management, public interest, economic development, and public safety – is environmental quality, which is the maintenance and enhancement of water quality and water‐related habitats. This plan describes how some of these objectives can be achieved – from the Water Supply Bank to volunteer source water improvement (such as nonpoint source reduction) strategies. Clark Fork‐Pend Oreille Watershed Management Plan (2007) www.deq.idaho.gov/media/892692‐clark‐fork‐pend‐oreile‐watershed‐mgmt‐plan‐0407.pdf “The 16‐million‐acre Clark Fork‐Pend Oreille watershed of the Upper Columbia Basin encompasses nearly 26,000 square miles in western Montana, northern Idaho and northeastern Washington. This large watershed lies within two regions of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, three states, fourteen counties, and two Native American reservations.”2 In Idaho, many of the goals for managing the watershed relate to reducing point source pollution, and there are sub‐basin advisory groups that were intended to work to form implementation steps for various segments of impaired rivers in the watershed. However, Idaho also has specific steps for addressing nonpoint source pollution (the Idaho Water Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements, IDAPA 58.01.02.350, the Idaho Nonpoint Source Management Plan, Idaho DEQ 1999, the Forest Practices Act – Idaho Dept. of Lands, and the Lake Protection Act – IDL). City of Sandpoint Watershed Management Plan (2007) www.cityofsandpoint.com/publicworks/water/watershedplan07.pdf This plan is discussed in some detail in the natural resources section. Generally, this report advises that Sandpoint protect its drinking water through the protection of its watershed through measures that include acquisition. This report also discussed the Little Sand Creek Watershed in more detail. Pack River Watershed Management Plan and TMDL Implementation Plan (2006) www.deq.idaho.gov/media/892752‐pack‐river‐watershed‐management‐plan‐tmdl‐implementation‐plan‐0706.pdf The Pack River is the second largest tributary to Lake Pend Oreille and it is important for agricultural water supplies, recreation, drinking water supply, and habitat for many species (including the bull trout, listed as “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act). This river is currently listed as a water quality impaired water body by the State of Idaho due to sediment, nutrients, and temperature impairments. This report describes these impairments in more detail, discusses current conditions in the area (including historical and projected land uses), describes organizations and stakeholders, and lists various implementation projects.

2 www.deq.idaho.gov/media/892692‐clark‐fork‐pend‐oreile‐watershed‐mgmt‐plan‐0407.pdf



Pend Oreille Lake Nearshore Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan (2004) www.deq.idaho.gov/media/464396‐_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_pend_oreille_lake_ns_pend_oreille_lake_ns_implementation_plan.pdf As described earlier in this report, Lake Pend Oreille is considered a “Special Water Resource,” and in 1994, was also listed as “threatened” by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ), due to the increasing amount of nutrients found in the lake. Water quality in the near shore areas of the lake has been degraded by human activities that occur near the lake or in areas that drain into the lake. This TMDL plan describes these issues, as well as describing collaborative community approaches (that include education and on‐the‐ground projects) to help protect the lake. Other issues are discussed in several other places including by the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (www.deq.idaho.gov/water‐quality/surface‐water/tmdls/table‐of‐sbas‐tmdls/pend‐oreille‐lake‐subbasin.aspx) and by The Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, Priest Lake and Priest River Commission (http://lakescommission.wordpress.com/issues/). Priest River Basin portion of the Comprehensive State Water Plan (1991) www.scawild.org/reports/Watershed/1995%20Priest%20River%20Plan%202.pdf Priest Lake, which covers 23,360 acres, is Idaho’s third largest natural lake. It is in a “remote location [with] beautiful heavily forested mountains on all sides,” and provides opportunity for water sports, fishing, camping and hiking. The Priest subbasin area has been declared impaired twice in recent years; ten segments along the Priest River were classified as water quality limited under section 303(d) for sediment other portions were listed for nutrients, dissolved oxygen, temperature, flow alteration, and habitat alteration. The Priest River Basin portion of the Comprehensive State Water Plan evaluates and water resources, as well as related cultural and natural resources. Places of particular recreational‐importance are identified as high priority for protection. The plan also identified specific values of importance for various segments in the river basin. The EPA’s Priest River Subbasin Assessment and Total Maximum Daily Load report (2001) also exists, and is accessible at www.epa.gov/waters/tmdldocs/2077_Priest%20River%20TMDL.pdf, and there is a 2014 update available at www.deq.idaho.gov/media/1068/priest‐river‐sba‐addendum‐draft‐0214.pdf. Other environmentally‐related or watershed plans in the area include: DEQ Analyses of the Idaho Pend Oreille River Model, Model Scenario Simulations, Revised Technical Report, October 2007, available at https://www.deq.idaho.gov/media/571486‐deq_staff_report_022508.pdf

Sandpoint water and waste management master plan Dover Source Water Protection Plan Forest Service plans Forest Plan for Idaho Panhandle National Forest Department of Lands and forest asset management plan Caribou Assessments Other development plans include: Panhandle Area Council Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy, 2014‐2019, available at http://goo.gl/4zIvvR.

Downtown redevelopment plan for Sandpoint. Strategic plan for downtown Ponderay Transplan ‐ the Bonner County/Greater Sandpoint Urban Area Transportation plan



10. References Boating in the Inland Northwest. 2016. Boating in the Inland Northwest.

www.boatingtheinlandnw.com/bonner_county.htm#Cocolalla_Lake. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner Community Housing Agency. 2016. Mission and History. http://bonnerhousing.org/mission/. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County EDC. 2016. Bonner County Economic Development Corporation. Center of the Outdoor Universe, Bonner County, Idaho. http://www.bonnercountyedc.com/businessr‐recreation.html. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County EMS. 2016. Bonner County Emergency Medical Services. www.bonnerems.com/. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County SWCD. 2016. Bonner County Soil and Water Conservation District. Lake Assist. www.lakeassist.org/. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County. 2002. Bonner County Comprehensive Plan: Recreation Component. http://bonnercounty.us/wp‐content/uploads/Planning/Comp%20Plan/Plan.rec_.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County. 2003. Bonner County Comprehensive Plan: Natural Resources Component. http://bonnercounty.us/wp‐content/uploads/Planning/Comp%20Plan/Natural‐resources.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County. 2012. County Wildfire Protection Plan. http://bonnercounty.us/wp‐content/uploads/Emergency%20Managment/2012‐CWPP‐Final.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County. 2013a. Bonner County Comprehensive Plan: Agriculture Component. http://bonnercounty.us/wp‐content/uploads/Planning/Comp%20Plan/AgMarch132013‐1.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County. 2013b. Bonner County Comprehensive Plan: Population Component. http://bonnercounty.us/wp‐content/uploads/Planning/Comp%20Plan/PopulationcomponentJune72013_002.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

City Data. 2016. Bonner County, Idaho. www.city‐data.com/county/Bonner_County‐ID.html#. Accessed March 2016.

City of Dover. 2013. City of Dover Comprehensive Plan. http://cityofdover.id.gov/downloads/PlanningAndZoning/Comprehensive%20Plan%20December%202013.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

City of Kootenai. 2015. City of Kootenai, Idaho Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. May 2015. http://www.idahosmartgrowth.org/app/uploads/2015/07/Kootenai‐Final.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

City of Ponderay. 2005. City of Ponderay, Idaho Comprehensive Plan. http://www.cityofponderay.org/wp‐content/uploads/2012/08/Final‐Comp‐Plan‐All.reduced.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

City of Ponderay. 2016. Ponderay City Center Plan. http://www.cityofponderay.org/city‐center‐strategic‐plan/. Accessed March 2016.



City of Sandpoint. 2007. Little Sand Creek Watershed Master Plan. http://www.cityofsandpoint.com/home/showdocument?id=596. Accessed March 2016.

City of Sandpoint. 2009. Sandpoint Comprehensive Plan. http://www.cityofsandpoint.com/home/showdocument?id=284. Accessed March 2016.

City of Sandpoint. 2011. Letter of Support for Watershed Protection Overlay District. www.cityofsandpoint.com/PDFs/Meetings/Council/2011/01‐19%20CCR/D.1%20Letter%20of%20Support%20for%20Watershed%20Overlay%20District.pdf. Accessed February 2016.

Doughty, PT and RA Price. 2000. Geology of the Purcell Trench rift valley and Sandpoint Conglomerate: Eocene echelon normal faulting and synrift sedimentation along the eastern flank of the Priest River metamorphic complex, northern Idaho. Geological Society of America Bulletin 112: 1356‐1374.

DoverIdaho.org. 2016. History of Dover, Idaho. http://doveridaho.org/about/history. Accessed March 2016.

Harmony Design. 2015. Pend d'Oreille Bay Trail Master Plan. http://www.harmonydesigninc.com/uploads/1/7/9/6/17965815/pobt_master_plan_final_‐_small_2015‐1214.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Headwaters Economics. 2015. Bonner County, Idaho's Resilient Economy. http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp‐content/uploads/Bonner_County_Report.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Hughes, Lee. 2015. Panel: As exports climb, so will train traffic. Bonner County Daily Bee. June 26. http://www.bonnercountydailybee.com/news/local/article_79e63554‐1bc8‐11e5‐a7c5‐3b3ee86acf31.html. Accessed March 2016.

ID HomeTown Locator. 2015. Bonner County ID Information. http://idaho.hometownlocator.com/id/bonner/. Accessed March 2016.

Idaho Conservation League. 2012. Property Rights Council Questions Drinking Water Protection. www.idahoconservation.org/blog/2012‐blog‐archive/property‐rights‐council‐questions‐watershed‐protection#sthash.uUrDn8WO.dpuf. Accessed March 2016.

Idaho Demographics. 2016. The Most Current, Easy‐to‐Consume Bonner County Demographics. http://www.idaho‐demographics.com/bonner‐county‐demographics. Accessed March 2016.

Idaho Department of Labor. 2016. Bonner County Workforce Trends. https://labor.idaho.gov/publications/lmi/pubs/BonnerProfile.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Idaho DEQ (Department of Environmental Quality). 2004. Pend Oreille Lake Nearshore Nutrient TMDL Implementation Plan. A Nutrient Management Plan for Pend Oreille Lake. December 2004. www.deq.idaho.gov/media/464396‐_water_data_reports_surface_water_tmdls_pend_oreille_lake_ns_pend_oreille_lake_ns_implementation_plan.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Idaho DEQ. 2016. Pend Oreille Lake Subbasin: Subbasin at a Glance. https://www.deq.idaho.gov/water‐quality/surface‐water/tmdls/table‐of‐sbas‐tmdls/pend‐oreille‐lake‐subbasin. Accessed March 2016.



Idaho State Historical Society. 1973. Reference Series, Number 444: Idaho Fur Trade. http://history.idaho.gov/sites/default/files/uploads/reference‐series/0444.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper. 2016. Lake Pend Oreille Waterkeeper Website. http://www.lakependoreillewaterkeeper.org/about‐us.html#.VrO8obIrKJA. Accessed March 2016.

Lakes Commission. 2016. Lake Pend Oreille, Pend Oreille River, Priest Lake and Priest River Commission. Issues. https://lakescommission.wordpress.com/issues. Accessed March 2016.

Love, Marianne. 1996. Railroading, Sandpoint Magazine. http://www.sandpointonline.com/sandpointmag/sms95/railroading.html. Accessed March 2016.

Plaster, Billie Jean, Chris Bessler, and Jane Fritz. 2016. Lake Pend Oreille History. Portions excerpted from the book “Wilderness of Water: Legendary Lake Pend Oreille.” http://www.sandpointonline.com/rec/lakeguide/history.html. Accessed March 2016.

Plaster, Billie Jean. 1996. Timber Town. Sandpoint Magazine. http://www.sandpointonline.com/sandpointmag/sms94/timber_loggers_logging.html. Accessed March 2016.

Pritzker, Barry M. A Native American Encyclopedia: History, Culture, and Peoples. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Rasmusson, Cameron. 2014. Area youngsters head back to class. Bonner County Daily Bee. www.bonnercountydailybee.com/news/local/article_f3fc1030‐3324‐11e4‐96c9‐0019bb2963f4.html. September 3, 2014. Accessed March 2016.

Sandpoint BID (Business Improvement District). 2012. Sandpoint History. http://downtownsandpoint.com/about‐sandpoint/new‐member‐materials/. Accessed March 2016.

Sandpoint Chamber of Commerce. No date. Bonner County at a Glance. http://www.sandpointchamber.org/cgi‐script/csNews/news_upload/About_20Us_2edb.Bonner%20County%20at%20a%20Glance2.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Sandpoint.com. 2016a. Hunting Sandpoint Idaho. http://www.sandpoint.com/Recreation/hunting.asp. Accessed March 2016.

Sandpoint.com. 2016b. Overview of City of Ponderay. http://www.sandpoint.com/Community/ponderay.asp. Accessed March 2016.

Scorecard. 2016. Scorecard/GoodGuide, The Pollution Information Site. Clean Water Act Status: Bonner County, ID. http://scorecard.goodguide.com/env‐releases/water/cwa‐county.tcl?fips_county_code=16017#cause. Accessed March 2016.

Sperling’s Best Places. 2016. Bonner County, Idaho. http://www.bestplaces.net/climate/county/idaho/bonner. Accessed March 2016.

Sowa, Tom. 2014. Coldwater Creek files for bankruptcy, will close stores. The Spokesman‐Review. www.spokesman.com/stories/2014/apr/12/coldwater‐creek‐files‐for‐bankruptcy‐will‐close/. Accessed March 2016.



US Census Bureau. 2016. QuickFacts, Bonner County, Idaho. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/16/16017.html. Accessed March 2016.

US Department of Interior. 1964. Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1779‐1. Ground Water in the Sandpoint Region, Bonner County, Idaho. http://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/1779i/report.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

US EPA. 2009. Brownfields and Land Revitalization, Brownfields 2009 Assessment Grant Fact Sheet Idaho Department of Environmental Quality, Bonner County, ID. http://cfpub.epa.gov/bf_factsheets/gfs/index.cfm?xpg_id=7078&display_type=HTML. Accessed March 2016.

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. ECOS: Environmental Conservation Online System: Bonner County, Idaho. http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/reports/species‐by‐current‐range‐county?fips=16017. Accessed March 2016.

US Forest Service. 2013. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Revised Land Management Plan, Idaho Panhandle National Forests. http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5436506.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

US Forest Service. 2016. Sandpoint Ranger District. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/ipnf/about‐forest/districts/?cid=fsm9_019008. Accessed March 2016.

USDA. 1980. Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey of the Bonner County Area. www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/idaho/bonnerID1982/bonnerID.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

USDA. 2012a. Agricultural Census, Bonner County Summary Highlights. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_County_Level/Idaho/st16_2_001_001.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

USDA. 2012b. Census of Agriculture County Profile: Bonner County Idaho. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2012/Online_Resources/County_Profiles/Idaho/cp16017.pdf. Accessed March 2016.

Bonner County Community Survey

KEY FINDINGS FOR GREATER SANDPOINT GREENPRINT

January 2015 1 Survey Results

Introduction

The Idaho Conservation League (ICL) and The Trust for Public Land (TPL) administered a survey in print

and electronic form during the fall of 2014. The survey targeted residents of Bonner County. It collected

opinions and ideas on topics related to trails and open space. Between October and December, staff

from ICL and TPL attended eleven community events and administered the survey to passersby at those

events. Additionally staff used social networking and traditional media outreach to encourage on-line

participation. In all, 560 surveys were submitted. Although the results cannot be guaranteed to reflect

the views of everyone in the community, it is an excellent response and a great basis for the Greenprint

and trail planning process.

Who responded?

� Adults of all ages took the survey, though the largest group represented was 36 – 60 year olds. 12%

were 18-35 years old; 51% were 36-60 years old; 37% were 61 and older. Only one child took the

survey. Respondents were 49% men and 51% women.

� Overall, 474 people reported having their primary residence in Bonner County. This means that at

least 85% of respondents reside in Bonner County (since more than 30 people skipped this question),

and most of them live in Sandpoint (321). Please see Table Ap-1 in Appendix A for more details about

highest reported residencies by zip code. See Table Ap-2 in the Appendix for exact community names

listed by respondents as their primary residence.

� There were also 34 people (6%) from out of state who took the survey, so some visitor input is

reflected in the results. Please see Table Ap-3 in the Appendix for a break-down of respondents’

residency by state.

� The largest number of respondents arrived in Bonner County the last 10 years. However, there are

also a great many people surveyed (more than 250) who have lived in Bonner County for more than

10 years. Table Ap-4 in the Appendix shows how long all respondents have lived in Bonner County

(Note: not everyone who self-reported living in Bonner County answered this follow-up question).

Key Findings for Greater Sandpoint Greenprint

� Respondents ranked water quality, recreation and access, and wildlife habitat as the most important

regional values.

� Lake Pend Oreille was mentioned most as both an iconic local natural resource and as a priority for

preservation. Preservation of Lake Pend Oreille was followed by the need to preserve lakes, rivers,

and waterfront areas in general.

� There was a wide range of suggestions for balancing the need to grow the economy in Greater

Sandpoint and retain local culture. The number one suggestion, mentioned by 17% of respondents,

was strong planning and zoning. Next, respondents advocated diversifying the local economy and

supporting trails (both 13%).

More details for all of the survey questions related to the Greater Sandpoint Greenprint are provided

below.

Bonner County


Survey Results 2 January 2015

Most Important Regional Values

When asked to rank their top 3 regional values, three community values emerged as particularly

important: water quality, recreation and access, and wildlife habitat. These results are shown in more

detail in Table 1.

Table 1. Most Important Regional Values for Current and Future Generations in Greater Sandpoint

Please RANK THE TOP 3 regional values you think are most important for current and future generations in Greater Sandpoint.

Answer Options First Second Third Total

Water Quality: Includes lands important to drinking water quality, riparian areas, and lands impacting watersheds.

229 101 83 413

Recreation & Access: Preserve lands for recreational activities and improve access to existing recreational assets.

138 95 129 362

Wildlife Habitat: Protect native species, their habitat and wildlife corridors.

66 155 117 338

Working lands: Protect working farms, forests, and ranches. 36 50 77 163

Community Buffers: Create open land buffers around communities.

12 41 69 122

Views: Protect views that people value. 11 27 49 87

answered question 516

skipped question 44

See Appendix B for additional detail related to this question, particularly respondent suggestions for

how to characterize the most important regional values identified in Table 1.

Iconic Natural Resources

We also asked respondents to identify Greater Sandpoint’s iconic natural resources. We received more

than 330 responses to this question, and many people offered several answers. Some clear themes

emerged, as shown in Table 2 below. Lake Pend Oreille was the most commonly mentioned iconic

natural resource. Respondents also focused on surrounding mountains and rivers. Tables Ap-5 and Ap-6

in Appendix A show additional characterizations of the iconic resources.

Table 2. Iconic Natural Resources (General Breakdown)

General Breakdown of Responses Total Percent

Lake Pend Oreille 270 81%

Mountains 146 44%

Additional bodies of water (rivers, streams, smaller lakes, deltas, etc.) 123 37%

Forests/Trees 64 19%

Nature/Wildlife 42 13%

Trails 25 8%

Water Quality 17 5%

Recreation Activities (skiing, hunting, fishing, etc.) 16 5%

Air Quality 15 5%

Open Public Land/Green Spaces (undeveloped) 15 5%

Views 13 4%

Beaches 12 4%

Bonner County Community Survey



Most Important Places and Features to Preserve

In addition to asking about iconic natural resources, we asked about the places and features in Greater

Sandpoint that are the most important to preserve. There was quite a bit of overlap between these

answers and the list of iconic natural resources. There were 286 responses to this question, and many

respondents mentioned multiple areas. In all, 82 specific areas and general resource types were listed.

As with the iconic resources, Lake Pend Oreille was mentioned most frequently (32% mentioned it

specifically), followed by lakes, rivers, and waterfront areas in general (12%). Sandpoint City Beach, trails

(in general), and Sand Creek were mentioned by approximately 10% of respondents. The need to

preserve access to forest recreation and the lakefront were priorities for 8% and 7% of those surveyed.

Places and features mentioned by more than 5% of respondents are shown in Table 3. Table Ap-7 shows

the remaining survey results for this question.

Table 3. Most Important Places and Features in Greater Sandpoint for Preservation

Place Total Percent


Lake/River/Water/Waterfront 33 12%

City Beach 30 10%

Trails 29 10%

Sand Creek 26 9%

Access to Forests, Back Country, Recreation 23 8%

Access - Lakefront 21 7%

Pend Oreille Trail 20 7%

Historic Bldgs/Structures/Downtown 18 6%

Strategies for Growing the Economy and Retaining Local Culture

We also asked respondents to weigh in on how to simultaneously grow the economy in Greater

Sandpoint and retain local culture. We received 247 responses to this question, and many respondents

had several suggestions. The number one suggestion, mentioned by 17% of respondents, was strong

planning and zoning. Next, respondents advocated diversifying the local economy and supporting trails

(both 13%). Suggestions for diversifying the economy included facilitating development of the following

types of businesses: eco-friendly/alternative energy, small manufacturing, light industrial and small

aviation. Strategies mentioned by over 5% of respondents are shown in Table 4. The remaining

responses to this question are in Table Ap-8 in Appendix A.

Table 4. Strategies for Growing the Economy and Retaining Local Culture

(Q11) If growing the economy and retaining local culture are important goals in Greater Sandpoint, what can be done to realize these goals simultaneously? Total Percent

Planning/Zoning/Responsible Growth 43 17%

Diversify Economy/Attract New Businesses (e.g., small manufacturing, alternative energy) 31 13%

Support Trails (infrastructure, outreach) 31 13%

Support Local Businesses 25 10%

Bicycle Infrastructure (trails, campground) 22 9%

Communication/Education/Be Inclusive 18 7%

Restrict Dev to City Boundaries/Downtown 17 7%

Market Environmental Amenities/Outdoor Recreation/Eco-Tourism 17 7%

Bonner County



Additional Comments and Suggestions

Finally, we asked for additional comments or suggestions. There were a wide variety of responses to this

question. Many responses, for example “connect (bike, walk, hike, snowshoe, ski, etc.) every community

and recreation area,” “creating protection for trails, open space, wildlife and clean water will help limit

commercial growth and bring environmentally friendly tourism,” and “working lands are important” are

captured in more detail through other questions. Some of the answers that may have not been

specifically captured elsewhere in the survey are summarized below.

� General Recreation: We need more dog parks; “instead of additional trails, let’s fix some of these that

are in bad shape;” would like solar-lit biking and walking trails.

� Cycling Concerns: Bicycle lanes are often confusing [to drivers]; there’s too much attention to bike

trails; “appalled with the lack of respect the recreational [cycling] community has for motorists.”

� Access to Recreation: “I’m getting older, so for me, finding benches along the paths would be greatly

appreciated;” need more wheelchair accessible trails; if we over-regulate and lock people out of

these resources, they will be much less likely to care; we need dedicated, publicly-owned put-ins and

take-outs on the Pack River.

� General Environmental Concerns: Need to keep the number of coal and oil trains down; “lake level,

lake level, lake level.”

� Concern about Preservation and Environmental Groups: “Stop the land grab by conservation

groups;” “stop letting the environmentalists influence and take over the voice of the public.”

� Communication: The City of Sandpoint should have a webpage dedicated to trails and the outdoors.

Bonner County Community Survey KEY FINDINGS FOR GREATER SANDPOINT GREENPRINT: APPENDICES


Appendix A to Key Findings

Table Ap-1

Table Ap-1. Most Common Respondent Residency

City Zip Code Responses

Sandpoint 83864 321

Sagle 83860 68

Hope 83836 21

Dover 83825 12

Priest Lake 83856 12

Clark Fork 83811 9

Nordman 83848 7

Ponderay 83852 5

Table Ap-2

Table Ap-2. List of Respondents’ City/Community

Name of City/Community No. of Responses

Baldy Road 1

Bast Bonner County 1

Blanchard 1

Bonners (work in Sandpoint) 1

Bonners Ferry 2

Careywood 3

CDA 1

Chattaroy 1

Clark Fork 8

Cocolalla 2

Coeur d'Alene 1

Colbert 1

Colburn 1

Columbia Falls, MT 1

Coolin 3

County 1

Denver 2

Dover 18

Dover and Sandpoint 1

Eagle 1

Elmira 3

Emmett 1

Eugene 1

Garfield Bay 2

Granite 1

Grantsville (MD) 1

Harrison 1

Hayden 1

Bonner County KEY FINDINGS FOR GREATER SANDPOINT GREENPRINT: APPENDICES


Table Ap-2. List of Respondents’ City/Community

Name of City/Community No. of Responses

Hernon (MT) 1

Hope 18

Ione, WA 1

Kootenai 5

Kootenai/ Ponder Point 1

Laclede 2

Libby (MT) 1

Missoula (but own a house in Sandpoint and moving there in a year) 1

Monroe 1

Naples 3

Near Trestle Creek 1

Newman Lake 1

Nine Mile Falls 1

Nordman 4

Northport (WA) 1

Oldtown 2

Orofino 1

Otis Orchards (WA) 1

Pend Oreille River Sagle 1

Ponderay 5

Potlatch 1

Priest Lake 10

Priest River 7

Pullman (WA) 1

Richland 2

Rural Clark Fork 1

Sagle 64

Sandpoint/Whiskey Jack 1

Samuels 4

Sandpoint 286

Schweitzer 6

Scottsdale (AZ) 1

Selle Valley 1

Seward (AK) 1

Spirit Lake 1

Spokane (WA) 6

Syringa Area of Bonner County 1

Temecula (CA) 2

Tri Cities 1

Westmond 2



Table Ap-3

Table Ap-3. Respondent Residency by

State

State Responses

Idaho 491

Washington 20

Montana 4

Alaska 2

Arizona 2

California 2

Colorado 2

Maryland 1

Oregon 1

Table Ap-4

Table Ap-4. Respondents Residency in Bonner

County

Time Lived in Bonner County Responses

0-10 years 194

11-20 years 113

21 - 30 years 58

31-40 years 58

41-50 years 10

51-60 years 12

61-70 years 2

71+ years 1

Table Ap-5

Table Ap-5. Iconic Natural Resources (Specific Areas)

Specific Area Breakdown (2 or more responses) Total Percent

Schweitzer Mtn 24 7%

Sand Creek 14 4%

City Beach 11 3%

Selkirk Mtn 11 3%

Cabinet Mtn. 8 2%

Scotchman Peak 6 2%

Pack River 4 1%

Clark Fork 4 1%

Pend Oreille River 4 1%

Gold Hill 3 1%

Baldy Mtn. 3 1%

Green Bay 3 1%



Table Ap-5. Iconic Natural Resources (Specific Areas)

Specific Area Breakdown (2 or more responses) Total Percent

Sunnyside Peninsula 2 1%

Long Bridge 2 1%

Mickinnick Trail 2 1%

Green Monarchs 2 1%

Syringa 2 1%

Table Ap-6

Table Ap-6. Iconic Resources (Other)

Breakdown (2 or more responses) Total

The People 7

Logging/Lumber Industry 6

Easy access to resources (lake, mountains, etc.) 6

Shorelines 4

Train Station/Railroads 2

Table Ap-7

Table Ap-7. Most Important Places and Features in Greater Sandpoint for Preservation

Place Responses Percentage


Lake/River/Water/Waterfront 33 12%

City Beach 30 10%

Trails 29 10%

Sand Creek 26 9%

Access to Forests, Back Country, Recreation 23 8%

Access - Lakefront 21 7%

Pend Oreille Trail 20 7%

Historic Bldgs/Structures/Downtown 18 6%

Forests 14 5%

Syringa 13 5%

Water Quality 12 4%

Mickinnick 11 4%

Parks/Wilderness 10 3%

Dog Beach 9 3%

Open Space 9 3%

Schweitzer 9 3%

Wildlife 9 3%

Gold Mountains/Gold Hill 8 3%

Bike Path 8 3%

Scotchman 8 3%

Long Bridge 7 2%

Dover 7 2%

Pack River/Pack River Delta 7 2%



Table Ap-7. Most Important Places and Features in Greater Sandpoint for Preservation

Place Responses Percentage

Selkirk Mountains 7 2%

Baldy Mntn Trail 6 2%

Mountains 6 2%

Clark Fork Delta 5 2%

Public Land 5 2%

Priest Lake National Forest 4 1%

Quality of Life/Rural Character 4 1%

Viewsheds 4 1%

Green Bay 3 1%

Farms/Ranches 3 1%

Air 3 1%

Watersheds 3 1%

Denton Slough 2 1%

Forest Service Land 2 1%

Idaho Cabinets (proposed Wilderness) 2 1%

Kootenai Point 2 1%

Memorial Field 2 1%

Bum Jungle Trail 2 1%

Affordable housing/Home ownership 2 1%

Black Rock 2 1%

Ponderay Beach 2 1%

Priest River 2 1%

Recreation 2 1%

Restoration (milfoil eradication) 2 1%

Round Lake 2 1%

Ski trails - cross country 2 1%

Sherwood Forest 2 1%

Sunnyside 2 1%

Timber Harvest 2 1%

Travers Park 2 1%

Trees (large/older) 2 1%

Note: Table Ap-7 includes all areas that were mentioned by at least two respondents. The following

areas were mentioned in only one survey: Brown Hill, Butler Mountain, Chimney Rock, Chuck’s Slough,

City Parks, Fairgrounds, Gold Creek, Happy Fork Gap, Hope Peninsula, Lakeview Cemetery, Lightning

Creek, Pend Oreille River, Railroad, Rock Creek, Sacred Woman Beach, Scapegoat, Seven Sisters Range,

ski Area, Shepherd Lake, Sidewalks, Talache Landing, undeveloped land, University of Idaho land,

waterfalls, wetlands, Whiskey Jack, and Windbag.

Table Ap-8

Table Ap-8. Strategies for Growing the Economy and Retaining Local Culture

(Q11) If growing the economy and retaining local culture are important goals in Greater Sandpoint, what can be done to realize these goals simultaneously? Total Percent

Planning/Zoning/Responsible Growth 43 17%

Diversify Economy/Attract New Businesses (e.g., small manufacturing, alternative energy) 31 13%

Support Trails (infrastructure, outreach) 31 13%



Support Local Businesses 25 10%

Bicycle Infrastructure (trails, campground) 22 9%

Communication/Education/Be Inclusive 18 7%

Restrict Dev to City Boundaries/Downtown 17 7%

Market Environmental Amenities/Outdoor Recreation/Eco-Tourism 17 7%

Increase Tourism (general) 13 5%

Protect and Enhance Lake/Parks/Beaches/Trails 13 5%

Improve City Infrastructure (roads, sidewalks, parking, shuttles/public transit) 9 4%

Preserve More Land 8 3%

Improve Other Outdoor Recreation Opportunities (hunting, fishing, etc.) 9 4%

Incentives for Locals to Stay (affordable housing, raise minimum wage) 6 2%

Strong Local Events (including farmers' market) 6 2%

Promote Timber Harvest 6 2%

Increase Lake Access 5 2%

Support Farmers and Ranchers 5 2%

Fundraising (foundation, railroad funds, state funds) 4 2%

Establish College 4 2%

No Conflict 3 1%

Revitalize/Preserve Downtown 3 1%

Not Compatible/Don't Need Economic Growth 2 1%

Common Sense 2 1%

Improve Quality of Life 2 1%

High-Speed Internet 2 1%

Reduce Government/Regulation 2 1%



Appendix B

Characterizing Regional Values

Respondents had many suggestions for how to characterize these regional values that may help during

the mapping process or may help the Steering Committee think about action steps for the Greenprint.

Here’s a summary of their suggestions:

� For water quality, consider: Lake Pend Oreille; Wetlands; Riparian areas; Keep chemicals out of

watershed by restricting what people use on lawns and houses; Reduce the use of septic and open

ponds. Set higher water quality goals; Treat the surrounding landscape responsibly; Stop the city from

harvesting trees for profit from our watershed; Repair waterways through mycology; Protect private

property rights; Keep expansion of federal control out of this; Let the people that use water for

livestock and food production alone.

� For recreation: Increase paddlecraft access; Need more ORV trails, more challenging ones; Improve

access to/for non-motorized recreation [several people mentioned this one]; Do not block the public

from using public lands; Water levels are lowered on the Lake way too early in the summer and don't

go up soon enough; Don't take away too much land for just hikers, etc....balance out the land for all

recreation; Open all the existing roads; Improve access (including using a bicycle safely on paved

roads); More public lake access is needed in the north.

� For wildlife habitat: Native birds, plants and shrubs; Caribou habitat; Wildlife corridors (e.g. Rocky

Mountain wildlife corridor); Endangered species identification and protection; Less logging or more

sustainable practices; Create funding mechanism for Conservation Future acquisitions; Limit

snowmobiles, motorcycles, and four wheelers; Fund stoves that burn more efficiently for people who

burn for heat, so less downed wood is taken from the forest; People closing off land to the public

using fake endangered species is a crime.

� For working lands: Support farmers markets; Stop subdivisions on farm land; Keep expansion of

federal control out of this; Harvest trees to help reduce beetle infestation.

� For community buffers: Working lands close to town protect regional character; Limit new buildings

and use all the barely used ones that are already here; Land should be protected individually and by

the free market; Don’t have buffer zones; Have farmland owned by the city where you can employ

local poor people to be farmers, and grow food to address the local food insecurity issues.

� For viewsheds: Visual access to Lake Pend Oreille from roads and highways.

Greater Sandpoint Greenprint

Steering Committee Kick-Off Meeting

3:30 – 5:00 p.m. Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Panhandle State Bank Building, Community Room

414 Church Street, Sandpoint

Participants:

Clare Marley, Bonner County Planning Dept Marianne and Bill Love

Shannon Williamson, City of Sandpoint Greg Becker, NRCS

Cate Huisman, Sandpoint Planning Commissioner Ed Robinson, Idaho Dept of Lands

Erik Brubaker, Planner, City of Ponderay Regan Plumb, Kaniksu Land Trust

Crystal and Tim Closson Jeremy Grimm, Planner, City of Sandpoint

Annie Shaha, Mayor, City of Dover Andy Kenaly

Erick Walker, District Ranger, US Forest Service Karen Sjoquist, Idaho Dept of Lands

Erin Mader, Lakes Commission Mark Contor, Northern Lights Electric Coop

Eric Grace, Executive Director, Kaniksu Land Trust Leonard and Naomi Wood

Molly McCahon, Lake Assist Brian Wood

Mary Terra Burns, Idaho Dept of Fish and Game Curt Pavlat, BLM

Reg Crawford, Trout Unlimited Brian Fobes, Idaho Forest Group

Cindy Peer, Selkirk Valley BC Horsemen Scout Seley

Kirk Sehlmeyer, NRCS Forester Susan Drumheller, Idaho Conservation League (ICL)

Ryan Fobes, Idaho Dept of Fish and Game Nancy Dooley, ICL

Kim Woodruff, Director, Sandpoint Parks and Rec Kelley Hart, The Trust for Public Land (TPL)

Barney Ballard, Ponderay Parks Committee Bob Heuer, TPL

Kate McAllister, Greater Sandpoint Chamber Fred Gifford, TPL

Jim Lovell, Greater Sandpoint Chamber Amy Morris, TPL

Eric Paull, Washington Trust Bank

1. Welcome

Susan Drumheller from Idaho Conservation League (ICL) welcomed everyone to the meeting,

introduced conveners, and led group in round robin introductions. She noted that the Greenprint is a

community effort.

Jeremy Grimm, Sandpoint Planning and Community Development Director (until end of January),

discussed why the Greater Sandpoint Greenprint is important. Jeremy mentioned that Sandpoint has

been named the most beautiful town in America and that a Headwaters Economics/Stanford University

study shows much more job creation in areas where more than 30 percent of land is protected. He

discussed the green amenity economy and the importance of “lifestyle pilgrims” who are attracted to

the character of Sandpoint and can create job-generating “innovation hubs.”

2. Describe Project Process, Approach and Roles

Kelley Hart from The Trust for Public Land (TPL) noted that Greenprinting is about preserving sense of

place and said that the Steering Committee members, together with input we have from community

outreach last fall, will help to determine great opportunities for special places to preserve.

Kelley showed the study area map and discussed the relationship between the Greater Sandpoint

Greenprint and the Bonner County Trail Plan. Next she outlined Greenprinting steps: (1) Identify

community values; (2) Collect data and translate into GIS [Bob and Fred from TPL will work with

Technical Advisory Group]; (3) Weight criteria for the community values; (4) Generate maps; (5)

Stakeholder implementation plan (as realistic as possible). Next, Kelley described a Greenprint case

study in Bend, Oregon.

Kelley emphasized that the role of the Steering Committee is to serve as liaisons, to review draft maps,

and to help with putting together an action plan. Anticipated Schedule: Winter to Summer 2015 will be

mapping. Spring to Fall 2015 will be developing an action plan with Steering Committee. On-line

mapping site will be rolled out in Fall 2015, and Greenprint materials will be finished in Winter 2015.

3. Review community engagement findings

Kelley briefly described the community engagement activities (Speak-Out booths and survey) that were

conducted in Fall 2014. She noted that trends in priorities for preservation came out of open-ended

questions. Results are shown in Key Findings Memo.

A Steering Committee member asked where the Greenprint will end up. Kelley said that Greenprint

results may be used by land trusts to determine high priority areas for working with landowners

interested in selling or donating their land for open space or by governments if they are expanding trails

or parks with interested landowners. The main Greenprint map is a “bang for your buck” map in that it

shows where most of the community values overlap so it generally helps interested parties focus on the

areas where conservation dollars can be well invested in partnership with interested landowners. It may

be used as a reference point in comprehensive plans. The Steering Committee will help determine how

the results are communicated to the larger community; strategy depends on what would be most useful

and politically acceptable. Kelley mentioned that this is not a plan for eminent domain (a.k.a. taking of

private property rights), but for working with landowners who are interested in selling or donating their

land when high opportunity areas (from the “bang for your buck map”) are identified on private lands.

Another Steering Committee member asked whether survey participants were a representative sample.

Kelley said that the large number that participated (560 respondents) was great, but does not precisely

represent local demographics. It would have been good to survey more residents from outside

Sandpoint. However, people spent a lot of time a Speak-Outs and provided a lot of helpful, detailed

input.

4. Small group discussion about community values

Steering Committee members broke into four groups, one for each of the top four goals/community

values from the Greenprint survey: water quality, recreation, wildlife habitat, and working lands. ICL and

TPL staff facilitated discussions and collected information from participants. Participants rotated to new

stations after 10 minutes (visiting 3 of the 4 stations during the 30 minutes). The results of these

discussions are captured in separate summaries of draft goals and criteria.

5. Closing

Susan noted that additional people can be invited to the Steering Committee meetings, and she thanked

participants for attending

6. Next Steps/Action Items

� TPL to compile draft goals and criteria from small group input and begin Greenprint mapping.

� Summary of draft goals and criteria to be circulated to Steering Committee by email for review and

comment; review period will be short, so that GIS team can begin mapping.

� TPL will convene the Technical Advisory Team; please let Bob Heuer ([email protected]) know if

you are interested in participating.

� Susan/ICL to get additional feedback regarding goals and criteria for water quality.

� Next meeting likely to be at the end of April.

Steering Committee Meeting Summary

GREATER SANDPOINT GREENPRINT

May 2015 1 Greenprint Steering Committee


Steering Committee Meeting #2

Wednesday, May 27, 2015, 4-5:30 PM

Panhandle State Bank Building

414 Church Street, Sandpoint

Participants

Aaron Qualls, Sandpoint Planning Dept Karen Sjoquist, Idaho Dept of Lands

Andy Kennaly, First Presbyterian Church Kim Woodruff, Director, Sandpoint Parks and Rec

Barney Ballard, Ponderay Parks Committee Kristin Larson, Idaho Dept of Env Quality

Bill Love, Inland Forest Management, Inc. Lawson Tate, Idaho Department of Lands

Christian Thompson, Century 21 Regan Plumb, Kaniksu Land Trust

Clare Marley, Bonner County Planning Dept Ryan Fobes, Idaho Forest Group

Erick Walker, District Ranger, US Forest Service Sean Mirus, Schweitzer

Erik Brubaker, Planner, City of Ponderay Susan Drumheller, Idaho Conservation League (ICL)

Erin Mader, Lakes Commission Nancy Dooley, ICL

Greg Becker, NRCS Kelley Hart, The Trust for Public Land (TPL)

Jamie Brunner, Idaho Dept of Env Quality Fred Gifford, TPL

Jennie Meulenberg, City of Ponderay Planning Dept Amy Morris, TPL

1. Welcome

Susan Drumheller from Idaho Conservation League (ICL) made introductory remarks, thanking

participants for coming and introducing conveners from The Trust for Public Land (TPL), Kaniksu Land

Trust, City of Ponderay, City of Sandpoint, and ICL. She led a round robin of introductions.

2. Greenprinting Background and Guiding Principles

Amy Morris provided background information about the project, including the objectives and process.

She also briefly reviewed guiding principles (see attached) and feedback received from community

outreach last fall. Feel free to provide Amy with feedback on the guiding principles

([email protected]).

3. Where We Are in Greenprint Process

Amy reviewed project timeline and progress. Here is the detailed timeline for the Greenprint:

� Outreach (interviews, speak-outs, survey) – Fall 2014

� Steering Committee Meeting #1 - Identification of goals, values, criteria for Greenprint maps – January 2015

� Creation of draft Greenprint maps (with TAT) – February to May 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #2 – Refining Greenprint maps – May 2015 (this meeting)

� Steering Committee Meeting #3 – Prioritizing for overall map and beginning of action planning – July 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #4 – Action planning and wrap up – September/October 2015

� Parcel Prioritization (Late 2015)

� On-Line Mapping Site Creation, Training, and Maintenance (Late 2015-Early 2016)

� Final Report and Messaging (Early 2016)

4. Introduction to Draft Greenprint Maps

Fred Gifford reviewed progress on mapping. Since last meeting we formed a Technical Advisory Team

(TAT). Since the last meeting the TAT: (1) Refined the study area; (2) Created draft goal maps; (3)

Documented the contents of each goal map in a “data matrix” (see attached).

Steering Committee Meeting Summary


Greenprint Steering Committee 2 May 2015

Next Fred went through each of the four goal maps – reviewing each criterion, then showing a draft map

for the goal. First he reviewed “protect water quality.” Then Fred reviewed “provide recreation.” Next

he showed the criteria for “protect wildlife habitat.” Last he described and showed the components of

“preserve working lands.” Fred noted that gathering data is nearly complete, but the TAT is still working

on how to create the weighted overlap for each goal map.

Steering Committee members asked questions about floodplain layer looking spotty and about why

“wetlands” did not appear in the name of any of the criteria in the water quality mapping. Fred and TAT

will look into floodplain layer and will add “wetlands” to the name of the riparian criterion (which

already includes wetland data). A Steering Committee member also noted that Access Yes lands (in

hunting criterion on recreation goal map) change every year. Fred said they would drop, replace, or

change the weighting of that criterion.

5. Introduction to Overall Map

Fred introduced the concept of an overall map, which would showcase the stacking of the goal maps in

one combined map. Fred and the TAT will weight the goals in different ways before the next meeting to

create scenarios to help the Steering Committee see how different weightings affect the overall map.

6. Discussion of Overall Maps

Amy divided the larger group into three small groups and they had individual discussions around goal

prioritization and urgency. Common themes among groups included a desire to see at version of the

overall map that reflects the relative weighting from the community survey conducted in fall 2014.

There was also a common belief that water quality was the highest priority goal, in part because it

contributes to the others. Groups also noted that succession issues are putting working lands, especially

farms and ranches in flat areas, at risk of subdivision.

In addition to common themes, individual groups also asked to see an overall map reflecting equal

weighting of the four goals; a separate map for water quality and one with the other three goals

combined; and recommended considering color thresholds, creating an overall “max map” and aiming

for an equal amount of red on each map. Another group pointed out that the value of many working

lands changes over time with different ownership (some owners do not want to provide recreational

access) and stages of timberland succession (some stages provide better habitat for certain species).

One group focused in particular on the threats to working lands in the Duford and Garfield Bay areas.

7. Next Steps and Closing

Amy closed the meeting, thanking everyone for coming and explaining that we’ll meet again in mid-July.

At the next meeting Fred will present refined maps, and the Steering Committee will discuss and vote on

prioritization. We will also begin action planning if there is enough time after discussing (and possibly

voting on) goal prioritization.

Guiding Principles: Greater Sandpoint Greenprint

The development of the Greater Sandpoint Greenprint is guided by the following principles and core

values:

� Local Values. Efforts to enhance conservation in our communities must be based on local values.

We can and should look to other communities for models, but will develop recommendations for

Greater Sandpoint that reflect our local values.

� Agriculture and Timber. Local residents value our agricultural and forestry heritage. We encourage

conservation efforts aimed at protecting agricultural and timber industries.

� Multiple Benefits, Multiple Uses. Conserved lands may serve multiple purposes. For example, land

along rivers and streams can keep water clean and cold and provide habitat for wildlife. Agricultural

and timber harvesting areas can provide economic benefits, open space, and habitat. We recognize

the potential for multiple benefits from thoughtful, voluntary land protection and strive to

emphasize those benefits.

� Recreation and Tourism. Strategic conservation enhances local economies by protecting assets that

are valued by both local residents and tourists. Conservation can benefit our local economies

through protecting Lake Pend Oreille and local rivers and streams; providing places for people to

play and recreate; providing access for hunting, fishing and wildlife watching; and through increasing

tourism opportunities.

� Economic Opportunity. Surrounding beauty, recreational opportunities and open spaces all play a

vital role in making the Greater Sandpoint area a desirable place to live and work—attracting and

retaining job creators far beyond the tourist or extraction economy. Conservation can also promote

viable agriculture and timber operations; increase property values; and provide income to individual

landowners through incentive-based conservation.

� Conservation is Voluntary. Greenprint partners only support conservation efforts with willing

landowners.

� We Respect Private Property Rights.

The communities of Greater Sandpoint include Kootenai, Dover, Sandpoint, and Ponderay.

Steering Committee Meeting Agenda


July 2015 1 Greenprint Steering Committee

Greenprint Meeting Summary


Steering Committee Meeting #3

Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at 4-5:30 pm

Bonner County Library, 1407 Cedar Street, Sandpoint

Participants

Aaron Qualls, Sandpoint Planning Dept Greg Becker, NRCS

Andy Kennaly, First Presbyterian Church Karen Sjoquist, Idaho Dept of Lands

Clare Marley, Bonner County Planning Dept Susan Drumheller, Idaho Conservation League (ICL)

Colleen Trese, Idaho Department of Fish and Game Nancy Dooley, ICL

Erick Walker, District Ranger, US Forest Service Fred Gifford, The Trust for Public Land (TPL)

Eric Grace, Kaniksu Land Trust Amy Morris, TPL

Erik Brubaker, Planner, City of Ponderay

1. Welcome

Susan Drumheller from Idaho Conservation League (ICL) welcomed participants, introduced conveners,

and led group in round robin introductions.

2. Overview of Meeting Goals

Amy Morris from The Trust for Public Land (TPL) reviewed meeting goals and the project timeline.

Meeting goals were (1) To reach consensus on an overall Greenprint map; and (2) To begin work on an

action/implementation plan for the Greenprint.

The project timeline is:

� Outreach (interviews, speak-outs, survey) – Fall 2014

� Steering Committee Meeting #1 - Identification of goals, values, criteria for Greenprint maps – January 2015

� Creation of draft Greenprint maps (with TAT) – February to Fall 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #2 – Refining Greenprint maps – May 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #3 – Prioritizing for overall map and beginning of action planning – July 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #4 – Final decision on overall Greenprint map and action planning–

September/October 2015

� Steering Committee Meeting #5 – Final action planning and wrap up meeting – late Fall 2015 (may not be

necessary depending on results of Meeting #4)

� Parcel Prioritization (Late 2015)

� On-Line Mapping Site Creation, Training, and Maintenance (Late 2015-Early 2016)

� Final Report and Messaging (Early 2016)

3. How Will the Greenprint Be Used?

Erik Brubaker (Planner, City of Ponderay), Aaron Qualls (Planner, City of Sandpoint), and Eric Grace

(Kaniksu Land Trust) each discussed how they hope to use the results of the Greenprinting process in

their work.

Erik Brubaker noted that he sees the Greenprint as an important reference that will be folded into the

Comprehensive Plan for the City of Ponderay. The Greenprint will be relevant to the Recreation,

Agriculture, Natural Resources, Hazards, and Public Services Elements of Ponderay’s Comprehensive

Plan and will help the city with updating policies and prioritizing funding. Erik mentioned that when



Greenprint Steering Committee 2 July 2015

applying for grant funding, it is important to be able to show that plans have had community input and

that the Greenprint will help with that. Erik concluded that the Greenprint would be useful for a long

time into the future.

Aaron Qualls mentioned that the City of Sandpoint is also updating its Comprehensive Plan and that they

will also use the Greenprint as a reference for their Plan. Aaron noted that only 13 other counties in the

west have grown more quickly (by percentage) than Bonner County in recent years. He hopes the

Greenprint will help inform decisions about how Sandpoint wants to grow and how it will set budget

priorities. Aaron also noted that the Greenprint will be valuable in helping Sandpoint “protect and

connect.” Aaron also mentioned the importance of the Watershed Crest Trail and the importance of the

watershed in general in protecting the lake and water quality.

Eric Grace described the work of the Kaniksu Land Trust in promoting voluntary protection of private

lands, primarily through conservation easements. Eric mentioned that the land trust is currently working

with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) on conservation of local prime farmland. Eric

said that the Greenprint will help Kaniksu Land Trust streamline its work and set priorities for voluntary

conservation, which is very important because of the organization’s finite resources. He hopes that the

land trust will be able to use the Greenprint data to compare potential projects. Eric also noted that the

community engagement that is part of the Greenprint process is likely to help with getting funding for

priority projects.

4. Greenprint Goal Maps

Fred Gifford from TPL briefly presented the revised versions of the four goal maps (Protect Water

Quality, Provide Recreation, Protect Wildlife Habitat, Preserve Working Lands). The goal maps are the

building blocks for the overall map. Fred noted that as better data becomes available in the future, it can

be integrated into Greenprint modeling. The criteria matrix for the goal maps is shown in the attached

table.

The Protect Water Quality map includes criteria for natural/native vegetation in proximity to water

sources, headwater streams, and soils susceptible to erosion. The Provide Recreation map is based on

providing access to water based recreation, hunting and fishing, areas around commercial open space-

based recreation, and existing and proposed trails. Meeting participants felt this goal map may not

adequately representing priorities because road segments are too prominent. Fred will work with the

TAT to address this issue. We may wait to finalize this map until after the trail priorities have been

identified through the Conceptual Trail Plan.

The current version of the Preserve Working Lands goal map includes criteria for agricultural land type

and water availability, wildlife corridors and greenbelts on working lands, and viewsheds. The current

Protect Wildlife Habitat map includes criteria for streams and riparian corridors, habitat types,

endangered species habitat, species of concern, and wildlife corridors. Much of the wildlife data is in the

form of large hexagons (2.5 kilometers per side) generated by the Western Governors’ Association.

5. Overall Greenprint Scenarios

After discussing the individual goal maps, Fred walked the group through three potential scenarios for

overall Greenprint maps. He noted that overall map is critical for setting priorities for long-range

acquisition.

The initial scenarios discussed were: (1) Scenario A: equally weighted goals; (2) Scenario B: water quality

weighted 40% and remaining goals each weighted 20%; and (3) Scenario C: goals weighted based on

survey results. A Scenario D showed an overall map excluding the Protect Water Quality goal. (These



July 2015 3 Greenprint Steering Committee

scenarios are shown in the attached maps.) Fred and Amy explained that the final online (interactive)

version of the Greenprint that will drill down to the parcel level will not be public; it will be password-

protected and only available to project partners who hope to use the Greenprint in their work.

Susan expressed concern that the watershed does not show up in current versions of Greenprint maps

because city land is considered already protected. Clare Marley noted that this is the case for other

public lands that may also be vulnerable. Karen Sjoquist was concerned about the over-representation

of water quality in determining high priority areas for conservation. Fred explained that water quality

criteria are magnified in the current set of maps because water quality measures are also included in the

Recreation, Wildlife, and Working Lands goal maps.

Erik Brubaker noted that Scenario A (equally weighted goals) appears skewed toward forested areas,

which are important, but not as threatened as other lands because they are not as easy to develop. The

group identified that Scenario B (water quality weighted 40% and remaining goals each weighted 20%)

shows the most red (high priority) areas and the most orange (moderate priority) areas. Susan said that

while she liked Scenario C (goals weighted based on survey results), the survey was not totally

representative because urban residents were over-sampled. Erik Brubaker mentioned that Scenario C

looks a lot like Ponderay’s Greenbelts Plan with more emphasis on the shoreline.

Andy Kennaly asked how to make sure that decisions about the final overall map are not random. Fred

answered that basing the maps on community input (from Speak Outs, Steering Committee Meetings,

Technical Advisory Team [TAT] meetings, and the public survey) helps make sure that maps reflect

community priorities. Fred described that Greenprints are blend of science and preference.

Multiple meeting participants expressed a general concern that working lands – particularly those in the

Selle Valley and Highway 95 corridor – seem to be underrepresented as priorities in the overall maps,

especially since these areas are likely to be the most threatened. Erik Brubaker stated that “valley lands

are key to the soul of our community.”

In response to participant concerns with existing overall scenario maps, Fred created a Scenario E with

Water Quality weighted 30%; Recreation and Wildlife Habitat each rated 25%; and Working Lands

weighted 20%. Attendees identified that the Pack River is quite dominant in Scenario E. After discussing

Scenario E, the Steering Committee used key pads to vote on their scenario preferences.

During the first vote, 60% of attendees preferred Scenario E. The remaining 30% of votes were divided

equally (10% each) between Scenarios A, B, and C. The second vote showed that among the initial three

scenarios (A, B, and C), 50% preferred Scenario C (weighting based on community survey), 30%

preferred Scenario B (water quality at 40%), and 20% preferred Scenario A (equally weighted goals).

Meeting participants agreed that Fred should work with the TAT to improve the Recreation and Working

Lands goal maps and that they would like to see agricultural lands show up in the overall map as (at

least) moderate priorities. In addition to wanting to see revised version of goal maps, the Steering

Committee was not comfortable trying to make a decision about a final overall map because of

relatively low meeting attendance.

6. Action Planning

After discussing the overall maps, Amy asked the group to spend 10 minutes doing a writing exercise

responding to the question “What steps will be most important in ensuring that project objectives are

met and the Greenprint is successfully implemented?” The results from this exercise will be compiled

into a preliminary version of an action plan to be distributed before the next Greenprint Steering



Greenprint Steering Committee 4 July 2015

Committee meeting. Because action steps need to be implementable by Steering Committee

participants – particularly Kaniksu Land Trust, local governments, and TPL – those groups will vet the

suggestions before incorporating them into a preliminary plan.

7. Closing

Amy thanked the group for coming. She said that everyone would receive a meeting summary and that

the Steering Committee would meet again in the Fall to finalize an overall Greenprint map and discuss

action planning.

8. Next Steps

� Fred/TPL to work with TAT on revisions to goal maps (particularly Recreation and Working Lands)

and overall map scenarios.

� Amy/TPL to create an online survey to get feedback on revised goal maps and new overall scenario

maps before the next Greenprint Steering Committee meeting.

� TPL/ICL to work to ensure that next Greenprint meeting has enough attendees that the Steering

Committee will be comfortable making a final decision about an overall map scenario.

� The next Steering Committee meeting will be in the Fall.

Meeting Summary Attachments

- Criteria Matrix (7/8/15)

- Side by Side Scenario Maps (7/15/15)



October 2015 Greenprint Steering Committee


Steering Committee Meeting #4 (Final Meeting) Bonner County Administration Building Conference Room

1500 Highway 2, Sandpoint, ID

Wednesday, October 28, 2015 at 4-5:15 pm

Participants Aaron Qualls, Sandpoint Planning Dept Kristin Larson, DEQ

Andy Kennaly, First Presbyterian Church Nancy Dooley, ICL

Barney Ballard Regan Plumb, Kaniksu Land Trust

Carol Wilburn, Idaho Conservation League (ICL) Shane Sater, ICL

Erik Brubaker, Planner, City of Ponderay Susan Drumheller, ICL

Jared Yost, City of Sandpoint Fred Gifford, The Trust for Public Land (TPL)

Karen Sjoquist, Idaho Dept of Lands Amy Morris, TPL

Kim Woodruff, City of Sandpoint Kelley Hart, TPL

Meeting Goals (1) Reach consensus on an overall Greenprint map; and

(2) Review and expand draft action plan.

Agenda

Welcome and Overview of Meeting Goals

Susan welcomed participants and announced that this is last meeting for the Greenprint Steering

Committee. Amy explained that there are two main items on the agenda for this meeting: (1) the group

will select one map that reflects the combined community goals; and (2) the group will refine the draft

action plan that was developed based on ideas generated at the last stakeholder meeting.

Selection of Overall Greenprint Map Scenario

Fred reminded participants that 4 goals were identified as high priorities by the community through

extensive outreach last fall: (1) Maintain Water Quality, (2) Provide Recreation, (3) Protect Wildlife

Habitat, and (4) Preserve Working Lands. For each goal, TPL staff – together with a Technical Advisory

Team (TAT) made up of local and regional experts – created a map to represent where those values exist

in the study area. The next step is to combine those four goal maps into one map to identify where to

realize multiple benefits (or goals) in one place. Fred referred to this as “the stacked priorities map.”

Fred reminded the group that they discussed some scenarios at the last Steering Committee meeting,

and he presented two scenarios that are the “finalists”: Scenarios E and F. A map of Scenario F is

included as an attachment to this summary. Mapping changes since the last meeting include

incorporating the trail system areas from the trail planning process into the Provide Recreation goal map

and adding layers to the Maintain Water Quality map to reflect the importance of the watershed for

local water supply.

� Scenario E: Water quality is weighted the highest here. This closely matches the community survey

results, but has been adjusted a little based on feedback received at the last meeting. The breakdown



Greenprint Steering Committee 2 October 2015

of the weighting for this scenario is: Maintain Water Quality (30%); Provide Recreation (25%); Protect

Wildlife Habitat (25%); and Preserve Working Lands (20%).

� Scenario F: Working lands are weighted a little higher here so more of those lands are showing up as

moderate priority in this scenario. Scenario E and F maps are similar, but there are more medium and

high priorities in the valley area in this scenario. The weighting breakdown for Scenario F is: Maintain

Water Quality (30%); Provide Recreation (20%); Protect Wildlife Habitat (20%); and Preserve Working

Lands (30%).

After reviewing Scenarios E and F, Fred and Amy co-led a discussion with participants about the relative

strengths and weaknesses of the two scenarios. Fred asked the question: “Which map illustrates

intuitively what you would expect given that these are the 4 goals?” The group took a preliminary vote

and then had a discussion. The following topics were raised:

� Looking at the map from the perspective of a conservative member of public and considering which

scenario appears more moderate (not too much high priority).

� Considering the importance of protecting wildlife habitat.

� Many of these lands are agricultural lands and they will not be “locked up,” but rather they will

remain as working lands (can help to address concern about this being too much conservation).

� Considering how the tool can be used. One person mentioned that it can help with preventing sprawl.

Another person talked about looking for a scenario that creates long-term livability.

� Considering the importance of showing agricultural lands and realizing water quality protection

because these two goals really resonate in the community.

Amy talked about the importance of framing the report to be sensitive to the concern that this is too

much land identified as high priority. She mentioned that the report should discuss the concept of

conserving the rural way of life. Kim suggested that the plan be framed in terms of what we’d like to see

in 100 years – it’s for future generations. One person asked for clarification on methodology, and Fred

explained that he used a weighted sum analysis to come up with the overall map. Amy polled

participants again, and 91% voted for Scenario F. Amy announced that this scenario will be the one

featured in the final report.

Action Planning

Next the group discussed the draft action plan. Amy divided the participants into two groups, and they

each had a facilitated discussion to review the action plan handout and discuss whether anything is

missing and what is most important. Please see attached revised action plan, which reflects the

combined thinking of the two groups. After report backs from each group, Amy and Kelley discussed

the fact that the priorities of the two groups were very complementary. As a next step, TPL staff agreed

to combine the notes and produce a new version of the action plan and circulate it for comment. If

anyone has anything additional to add, please send comments to Amy ([email protected]) by

December 1.

Next Steps and Closing

Amy explained that once the entire draft plan is complete, the next step will be to circulate the draft

with other groups and seek buy-in. The draft will be distributed and discussed with key potential

champions, relevant agencies, and with local elected officals. Erik Brubaker noted that Ponderay (and

Sandpoint) staff would like to fold the Greenprint into their comprehensive plan updates for adoption.



October 2015 Greenprint Steering Committee

Erik also pointed out that this is not a land use map, but rather a prioritization tool for voluntary actions.

Amy and Susan thanked participants for attending the meetings and engaging in the process. The

meeting adjourned at around 5:20.

Attachments

� Greenprint Map (Scenario F)

� Revised Draft Action Plan

Documents

Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report: Appendices B-E 2016 · Greater Sandpoint Greenprint Final Report: Appendices B-E 2016 . Greater Sandpoint Area Greenprint Model Bonner Goal