1 / 21

Wetland Grant Project

Wetland Grant Project. Riparian Resource Areas Designated Through Subdivision . Highlights. 181 Riparian Areas Visited About half had no major issues “Common Area” RAs had fewer issues than private Educational mailing sent in April (over 1200)

oriole
Download Presentation

Wetland Grant Project

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Wetland Grant Project Riparian Resource Areas Designated Through Subdivision

  2. Highlights • 181 Riparian Areas Visited • About half had no major issues • “Common Area” RAs had fewer issues than private • Educational mailing sent in April (over 1200) • Offered to present at Homeowner’s Associations • Identify potential publically-owned RAs for future restoration efforts • Interactive map on website • Plans on website (may link to map in future)

  3. Most Common Issues • Lack of native riparian veg • Weeds • Mowing or clearing • Grazing • Sheds, retaining walls and other small structures

  4. O’Keefe Creek Lots

  5. Seeley Area veg clearing

  6. Same subdivision – different lot

  7. Miller Creek

  8. Wallace Creek (probable encroachment of greenhouse/riprap)

  9. Clark Fork River (west Missoula)

  10. Wallace Creek

  11. Riverwalk (Common Area)

  12. Turah

  13. Blackfoot

  14. Seeley–Swan

  15. O’Brien Creek

  16. Pattee Creek

  17. Riparian Area Ownership • 141 private – 68 had issues • 13 common – 2 had issues

  18. Could regulationbe improved? • How? • More outreach and education? • Offer restoration grants – partner with CD/Weed Dist.? • More consistent requirements for RMPs? • Include County access and enforcement authority in future? Currently most are in covenants Could RMPsbe contained in other part of subdivision pkg? • Delineation of riparian areas to include min. buffer? • Currently based on existing riparian veg plus buffer

  19. Uses for Compiled Information • Use map/database to check before building permits. • Prioritize open space purchases to connect areas. • Target areas for restoration • Link landowners with weed control resources

More Related