- 1 -

The Creeks of Lolo Creek

By

John Zelazny/Montana Trout Missoula, Montana

A Report on the Tributary Streams of Lolo Creek’s Watershed

Upper Reaches, South Fork of Lolo Creek

January 2006

- i -

The Creeks of Lolo Creek

An Analysis of the Tributary Streams of Lolo Creek’s Watershed

January 2006

By

John Zelazny/Montana Trout Missoula, Montana

“People Working for Wild Trout”

- ii -

Preface and Acknowledgements This report is designed to complement Montana Trout’s 2004 report “Lolo Creek Resource As-sessment” in providing a “cookbook” of sorts for identifying and implementing projects that restore the wild trout fishery in Lolo Creek. The Lolo Creek watershed has been loved hard since Lewis and Clark first ventured up it in 1805. In providing a living place and a living for countless thousands, Lolo Creek has lost much of the pristine condition it once could claim, and with that condition the habitat quality wild trout need to thrive. However, this report is not a call to return the Lolo Creek watershed to the past. Rather, this report is aimed at helping the watershed heal so that it can again be a productive home for wild trout. Montana Trout is a nonprofit organization based in Missoula, Montana with one purpose: to ensure that future generations still have abundant wild trout populations to experience and enjoy. Mon-tana Trout has a simple goal: repair the damaged trout habitats of Montana’s streams, rivers, ponds and lakes so that trout can do what is natural...multiply and fill available habitat. To reach this goal, Mon-tana Trout is trying to do a few things: first, use the best available science to design trout habitat im-provement projects. Second, we try to involve local people in every step of the process, and resolve re-source use conflicts with a cooperative attitude. Third, we base our choices of projects so that the public will enjoy access to public resources. And finally, we try to take a systematic, strategic approach to choosing trout habitat improvement projects. The Lolo Creek watershed is a perfect target for our work. Although it has been severely im-pacted by many land uses, the Lolo Creek watershed can still be made productive for wild trout. But, whether it ever will be again also depends on the care people decide to devote to the task. The Lolo Watershed Group, formed in 2003 to involve local folks in the restoration and conservation of the wa-tershed, is hopefully an organization that will lead this charge. This report is not a technical document. This report was written to be read by a lay audience and contains few specific citations of sources. The information used in this report was not comprehen-sive and came primarily from the files of the Lolo National Forest and Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, rather than from detailed ground surveys. The Plum Creek Timber Company, which owns about 30% of lands in the Lolo Creek watershed, could only supply Montana Trout with limited information due to time and staffing constraints. Any omissions or inaccuracies presented on the following pages are unin-tentional and likely stem from data limitations or misinterpretations. Omitted from this report are a handful of streams that are not known to support fish (these include Hollensteiner Gulch, Westerman Creek, Anderson Gulch, Cooley Gulch and several other very small drainages). Whenever possible, ad-ditional research has been conducted to verify and qualify assertions made in this report. The graphics in this report came largely from Rankin Holmes and the Big Sky Conservation Institute’s GIS Lab. Ran-kin’s professionalism and attention to detail are commendable. Support for this report came from the Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation’s Watershed Planning Assistant Grants program (administered by Mr. David Martin), the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, the Jubitz Family Foundation and the Red Lodge Clearinghouse for Resolving Environmental Disputes. Others whose help was invaluable include Shane Hendrickson and John Anderson with the Lolo Na-tional Forest, Ladd Knotek with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Ron Steiner with Plum Creek Tim-ber Company, Tara Comfort and Lori Zeiser with the Missoula Conservation District and the Missoula Conservation District Board of Supervisors, Reg Good-win and Project Lighthawk (for plane service), Greg Munther and Ernie McKenzie. Grateful appreciation is also due to Pete Schade of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, and to Dan Funsch for show-ing me how to use Photoshop. My apologies and pro-found thanks to anyone who helped with this report’s production who I have failed to mention.

John Zelazny Missoula, Montana

January 2006

- iii -

Table of Contents

Title Page……………………………………………………………………………...i Preface and Acknowledgements…………………………………………………..….ii Table of Contents…………………………………………………………....………iii

PART I: Introduction and Background…………………………………………….1

Introduction…………….…………………………………………………..1 About the Lolo Creek watershed…….……………………………………2 Sub-watersheds and Tributaries….….…………………………….………3 The “Checkerboard”….………………………………………...…...…….4 About Roads…………………………….………………………………….5 Precipitation………………….…………………...………………………..7 About Large Woody Debris….…………………………………………….7

PART II: The Creeks of Lolo Creek……………………………………………….9

Mormon Creek…..….……………………………………….……………10 Sleeman Gulch……………………………………………………...…….11

John Creek……………...………………………………………………...13 Mill Creek………………….……………………………………………..14 Tevis Creek……………………………………………………………….14 South Fork of Lolo Creek………………………………………………..15

West Fork Butte Creek…………………………………………..19 Marshall Creek…………………………………………..20

Cooper Creek…………………………………………….21 Dick Creek…………………………….…………………………21

Johnny Creek……………………………………………..22 Woodman Creek……………………………………………………..…..23 Camp Creek……………………………………………………………...24 Bear Creek………………………………………………………………..25 Clark Creek……………………………………………………….……...26 Davis Creek…………………………………………………………...….27 Grave Creek………………………………………………………………28 Howard Creek…………………………………………………...……….29 Chief Joseph Gulch…………………………………………...………….31 Cloudburst Creek…………….……………………………………….….32 Martin Creek…………………………………………………………......33 Granite Creek……………………………………………………...……..34

North Granite Creek……………………………………………..35 East Fork of Lolo Creek……………………………………….…………35

Lost Park Creek…………………………………..………………36 West Fork of Lolo Creek…………………………………………….…..37

Lee Creek…………….…………………………………………..38

Conclusions and Summary……………..………………………………..39 Sources…………………………………………………...……………….41

Subject Page

- iv -

- 1 -

In 2004, Montana Trout released an assess-ment of the Lolo Creek watershed titled “Lolo Creek Resource Assessment.” Lolo Creek is a small to medium sized stream in western Montana, with a watershed covering 175,484 acres. It is a typical clear, basin-fed moun-tain stream that flows eastward from headwa-ters are on the Idaho border for about 33 miles to a confluence with the lower Bitter-root River (for which it is the principal tribu-tary). Montana Trout’s 2004 assessment of the Lolo Creek watershed was fairly general in nature, and was focused on land use history as much as on spe-cific qualities of the watershed. The intent of the 2004 assessment was to character-ize the Lolo Creek watershed as a precursor to wa-tershed restora-tion planning and activities to bene-fit trout. The 2004 as-sessment noted that the Lolo Creek watershed has been im-paired by a variety of land uses over the years, including highway construction, com-mercial logging, wildfire suppression, deleteri-ous water use practices, subdivision and prop-erty development, and the rampant spread of noxious weeds. Some of the effects of these land uses manifest as deforestation, unsound timber stand modification, erosion and sedi-mentation, channelization and stream straightening, stream dewatering, wildlife dis-

placement and increased wildlife/human con-flicts, and overall as a widespread impairment of environmental quality within the water-shed. The hydrology, stream morphology and fish habitat of Lolo Creek have been of par-ticular concern. Lolo Creek, until a few dec-ades ago, was a widely meandering stream noted for an excellent wild trout fishery. Deep pools associated with numerous log jams were locally famous as fishing “holes”, and Lolo Creek was enveloped with a dense

corridor of riparian vegetation. Most of the Lolo Creek watershed is in a mixed geologic area, predominated by sedimentary for-mations to the north and granitic intrusives to the west and south. The resulting soils can be easily erod-ible. The con-struction of High-way 12 in the late 1950’s eliminated

many of the meanders on the main stem and forced Lolo Creek into a fraction of its origi-nal floodplain. These changes alone made Lolo Creek shorter and faster, resulting in accelerated erosion of some streambanks, regular flushing (during annual high water periods) of large woody debris and generally a uniform riffle morphology with infrequent pools and fish cover. During the last century, most of Lolo Creek’s riparian forest along the main stem

Big Sky Conservation Institute graphic

The Lolo Creek Watershed

Part I: Introduction

- 2 -

was removed for timber use and land clear-ing. This removal, along with livestock graz-ing damage and both intentional and unin-tentional removal and flushing of in-stream large woody debris, exacerbated the degrada-tion of fish habitat. Other problems affecting Lolo Creek’s fishery include regular dewater-ing from agricultural irrigation, entrapment (or “entrainment”) of fish in unscreened irri-gation diversions, sedimentation from logging and highway operations, and streambank ‘stabilization’ involving rip-rap and property protection. Serious restoration efforts will be needed to offset this long term degradation of the Lolo Creek watershed and its self-sustaining

(wild) trout fishery. A collection of local citi-zens (the Lolo Watershed Group) has re-cently formed to help facilitate the process, along with land management and fisheries managers working in partnerships to bring back the quality of Lolo Creek’s trout fishery. Hopefully the involvement of the Lolo Wa-tershed Group and Montana Trout will con-tribute to the restoration of this watershed. One deficiency in the 2004 Lolo Creek assessment was the principal focus on Lolo Creek’s main stem, with limited infor-mation provided for the tributary drainages. Approximately 20 known fish-bearing sub-watersheds with associated tributaries cover the bulk of the 175,484 acre Lolo Creek wa-tershed. Because the habitat problems of main stem Lolo Creek are so profound and substantial, the tributaries merit a more de-tailed examination of watershed condition and fish habitat quality than was afforded in the 2004 assessment. These tributaries may offer the greatest opportunities for measured short term gains. Accordingly, this docu-ment provides an assessment of most of Lolo Creek’s tributary streams with particular em-phasis on stream habitat condition and resto-ration opportunities. The 20 tributaries (and 8 sub-tributaries) of main stem Lolo Creek discussed in this assessment (from the confluence moving west upstream) are: Mormon Creek, Slee-man Creek, John Creek, Mill Creek, Tevis Creek, South Fork of Lolo Creek (including West Fork Butte Creek, Marshall Creek, Cooper Creek, Dick Creek and Johnny Creek), Woodman Creek, Bear Creek, Camp Creek, Clark Creek, Davis Creek, Grave Creek, Howard Creek, Chief Joseph Gulch, Cloudburst Creek, Martin Creek, Granite Creek (w/ North Granite Creek), East Fork of Lolo Creek (w/ Lost Park Creek) and West Fork of Lolo Creek (w/ Lee Creek). See the diagram

The Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks De-partment, the Lolo Watershed Group and the Lolo National Forest were partners in this 2005 project to restore trout habitat in Lolo Creek through large woody debris placement.

About the Lolo Creek watershed...

- 3 -

above for reference. Most of Lolo Creek’s tributary streams have not had the severe habitat degradation present on the main stem. These smaller streams often offer a more cost effective and realistic opportunity to enhance fish popula-tions as they support the majority of the wa-tershed’s salmonid (trout) spawning and rear-ing. One category of data that is lacking in this report is genetic purity data for native westslope cutthroat trout. Although west-slope cutthroat trout are the most widely dis-tributed fish in this drainage and in western Montana, genetic purity is often compro-mised through hybridization with rainbow trout. Conserving genetically ‘pure’ cut-

throat populations is considered a high prior-ity by all fish & wildlife and land manage-ment agencies involved in Lolo Creek. Di-rection and prioritization of restoration ef-forts is often affected by, and may hinge on identifying how many and where genetically pure westslope cutthroat trout populations occur. Currently, these data are not avail-able for most of the Lolo Creek watershed, but will be incorporated as they become available.

Known fish-bearing tributaries of the Lolo Creek watershed will be discussed in the order each is encountered as one moves west up the watershed from the mouth. Mile marker numbers locate tributaries where these streams are closest to, or crossed by,

(black lines denote sub-watershed boundaries)

The Creeks of Lolo Creek

Sub-watersheds and Tributaries

- 4 -

Highway 12 (again moving east-to-west, al-though Highway 12’s mile markers begin at Lolo Pass and so those confluences closest to Lolo have the highest marker numbers). Stream mileage for tributary mouths is based on the distance from Lolo Creek’s confluence with the Bitterroot River. The “Checkerboard”: A unique feature of the Lolo Creek wa-tershed is the “checkerboard” land ownership pattern wherein Plum Creek Timber Com-pany (PCTC) and the Lolo NF own alternat-ing 1 mile x 1 mile sections. This is most no-ticeable in the upper watershed above Lolo Hot Springs. This land ownership pattern dates back to railroad land grants issued by the U.S. Congress, shortly after the Civil War, as inducements for railroad companies to build transcontinental routes. Through a long process, PCTC ended up owning these “checkerboard” lands, along with many other parcels within the Lolo Creek watershed. Plum Creek, since 1989, has been an inde-pendent real estate corporation based in Se-attle; the timber operations PCTC is in-volved in are considered property manage-ment activities. Plum Creek owns over 52,000 acres, or over 29% (81 square miles) of the Lolo Creek watershed. Unlike the Forest Service, PCTC has no legal mandate for sustainable land use. Many of the roads in the Lolo Creek watershed are jointly man-aged as “cost-shared”, which means that the Forest Service is obligated to maintain them with financial assistance from PCTC. About Roads… Roads in the Lolo Creek watershed are probably a big source (if not the major source) of fine sediments that can fill the spaces between stream bottom gravels and

cobbles, choking off invertebrate habitat and trout spawning and rearing areas. Most roads in the Lolo Creek watershed were built to access timber; culverts placed in these roads were apparently not designed and con-structed with regard to upstream passage fea-tures for fish and other aquatic organisms. Most of the geologic material comprising the Lolo Creek watershed is composed of highly erosive granitics (argillites, gneisses, schists, quartzites, micas, and combinations thereof created when the huge Idaho Batholith in-

2001 satellite photo of some the watershed’s “checkerboard”: alternating square miles of public and private land ownership, dating to railroad land giveaways in the 1800’s, in the upper Lolo Creek watershed. The light ar-

eas are logged off private lands.

The “Checkerboard”

- 5 -

truded upon existing sedimentary formations containing limestone and other sedimentary materials many millennia ago). Soils formed from this material are highly sensitive to dis-turbance, which results in severe compaction and erosion. Roads in the Lolo Creek water-shed can act as both sources and conduits for eroded sediments that get into streams. The following is an excerpt from a Lolo NF document discussing a typical Lolo Creek sub-watershed.. “There are extensive road net-works along streambanks and in riparian zones…Direct sediment routing to stream chan-nels…occurs via streambank and riparian roads.

These roads also significantly reduce the amount of large woody debris that enters and stays in the stream. The overall result of valley bottom roads is a reduction in aquatic habitat amount and complexity. Removing some of these roads where feasible would greatly benefit the aquatic ecosys-tem. …Perhaps the most important part of restoring aquatic habitat in these streams is to reduce the amount of sediment loading that occurs as a re-sult of road surface erosion. The primary and most beneficial way to accomplish this goal is through closing as many roads as possible, espe-cially roads in riparian areas and roads lo-cated low to mid slope (emphasis in original)”, (B. Riggers, Lolo NF fisheries biologist, 1995). Roads and associated logging and other soil disturbing activities can also profoundly affect the water yield of streams. Streams that have flows beyond what their channels can hold can be susceptible to bank erosion, substrate erosion, pool filling and channel instability. Roads can be conduits for water delivery into streams, and can cause the wa-ter carrying capacity of a stream to be greatly exceeded. Also, roads near streams are gen-erally much more likely to convey sediment and water into streams than roads located on, say, ridges. Finally, there are a huge number of non-network “jammer” roads built and used during timber harvesting but not included in any roads inventory in the Lolo Creek watershed. These jammer roads far exceed (by as much as five times) the inven-toried miles of road in some parts of the wa-tershed, as mentioned in the Lolo NF’s 2005 Upper Lolo analysis. Jammer roads can be deceivingly grown in with vegetation (see photo), but they can be just as harmful, if not more harmful, to watershed stability than “official” roads during severe events (like a heavy rain after a big forest fire).

Typical road densities in the Lolo Creek Watershed (Howard Creek area).

Lolo NF photo

about ½ mile

About Roads...

- 6 -

The Lolo National Forest has five dif-ferent categories for road closures, ranging from gating (when the road is likely to be used again within 20 years) to permanent closures and road obliteration. Permanently closing and obliterating these roads effec-tively means building back roadcuts to har-monize with topographic relief, revegetating, and removing all culverts so that natural conditions and drainage patterns are fully restored. At a minimum, roads should be upgraded to accepted standards (such as Montana’s Best Management Practices, or “BMP’s”, for water quality) that cut sediment loading and ensure full aquatic passage (along with full hydrologic function) for all culverts and stream crossings. Plum Creek Timber Company (PCTC) has chosen to up-grade its extensive network of roads to BMP

standards and has focused on native fish en-hancements through its Native Fish Habitat Conservation Plan.

About Roads...

Lolo NF staffer Don Stadler on a grown-in jammer road in the upper Lolo Creek water-

shed’s Granite Creek drainage, July 2005. Montana Trout photo

A color image depicting road densities in the Lolo Creek watershed; green is the lowest road density, dark red is the highest. Biologists have found that road densities over 1 mi. road/mi2 are bad for wildlife security.

- 7 -

Precipitation The Lolo Creek watershed is fairly wet. The high elevations attract both ocean-driven moisture from the northern Pacific and monsoonal moisture from the southwest. As the graphic below depicts, higher eleva-tions receive higher amounts of moisture (much in the form of snow) than do the lower elevations. Average annual precipita-tion ranges from almost 100 inches/year in the highest elevations to about 30 inches/year at lower elevations near the town of Lolo. The timing and relative amount of snow pack and rainfall are essential elements of both the hydrologic cycle of the watershed and annual flow fluctuations in main stem Lolo Creek and its tributaries.

About Large Woody Debris… One fish habitat limitation that applies to parts of every tributary stream in the Lolo Creek watershed is the lack of large woody debris (LWD). Large woody debris includes either whole or partial tree and shrub sec-tions that are within active stream channels. There are two types of large woody debris: Acting and Potential. Acting large woody debris is either single or accumulated pieces actually within the active stream channel. Potential large woody debris could be downed or standing trees or shrubs that may well end up in the stream. It should be stressed that not every Lolo Creek tributary is deficient in LWD, and proper riparian management, rather than just adding LWD, is really the only long-term an-

Precipitation

- 8 -

swer. The careful and strategic placement of large woody debris can immediately enhance the trout habitat of streams, but is only appropriate where it is a clear limiting factor and is unlikely to be provided by the ripar-ian community. Healthy riparian communities and re-sulting large woody debris in a stream are recognized by many fishery biologists as the most important factors in creating high quality habitat. Large woody debris accumulations create pools and the diversity of currents needed to create complex channel forms. Large woody debris also provides cover, shade and places for algae, fungi and the deposit of organic material (like leaves) that in turn pro-vide rich feeding sites for the many insects and other small animals that trout depend upon. Interestingly, even the habitat of inter-mittent, ephemeral and small streams benefits immensely from large woody debris. In short, large woody debris is essential for quality wild trout populations. Logging or clearing streamside areas typically eliminates this potential large woody debris. This is a practice that should be dis-couraged if long-term habitat quality for trout is a priority. For many decades, streams in the Lolo Creek watershed (and in most of Montana) were robbed of large woody debris because either streamside forests were logged and/or the material was physically removed from the stream due to fears that flooding, erosion and property damage might otherwise

be the result. The annual flushing of streams during high water also pushes large woody debris downstream. One of the most important results of increased large woody debris in the tributary streams of the Lolo Creek watershed will be the increased frequency of pools and complex habitat. Availability of pool habitat and habi-tat complexity are important factors for deter-mining fish carrying capacity for any cold-water stream. All life stages of fish benefit by the habitat enrichment that in-stream large woody debris provides.

A nice large woody debris accumulation, South Fork of Lolo Creek Montana Trout photo

About Large Woody Debris

New LWD in Lolo Creek, August 2005 Montana Trout photo

- 9 -

PART II: The Creeks of Lolo Creek

Yellow lines denote the boundaries of Lolo Creek’s tributary sub-watersheds, yellow-and-black lines are sub-watersheds with internal

tributaries/sub-drainages, black line is the Idaho/Montana divide, red lines are gravel/dirt roads, dark dots are known fish passage barrier cul-

verts, and blue lines are streams and waterbodies.

Graphic: Big Sky Conservation Institute GIS Lab/Rankin Holmes

Clark Creek Bear Creek Camp Creek Woodman Creek Sleeman Gulch

West Fk Lolo Cr Lee Creek Lost Park Cr East Fk Lolo Cr

Mormon Creek John Creek Mill Creek Tevis Creek So Fk Lolo Creek Dick Creek West Fk Butte Cr

Grave Creek Howard Creek Granite Creek N. Fk. Granite

Martin Creek Cloudburst Creek Chief Jos Gulch Davis Creek

- 10 -

Mormon Creek

The Mormon Creek sub-watershed is 4,693 acres, or about 7.3 square miles in size. Mormon Creek is a significant third order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek. Mormon Creek is about 7 miles long, curving from the south to the southwest as one moves up-stream. Mormon Creek’s watershed drops about 5,087 feet in elevation from a high of 8,328 fsl* to a low of 3,241 fsl. Mormon Creek originates in steep, high elevation country on the south flank of Carlton Ridge, composed of easily erodible micaceous-schist soils down to 5600 fsl. The lower 2 miles of Mormon Creek are on developed private lands with many homes. The remaining upper 5 miles of Mormon Creek are on roaded and logged Lolo NF land. Roads, including almost 2 miles of streamside road in Mormon Creek’s middle reaches, have been built on both sides of the drainage. Roads in the Mormon Creek drainage total 33.2 miles, or about 4.5 miles of road/square mile. Almost all of the Mormon Creek sub-watershed (except in the highest reaches) has been logged during the last century. Of the upper portions of Mormon Creek on Lolo NF land, the southerly (northwest- and north-facing) sides of the drainage are now well-timbered with regrowth, except for a series of promi-nent clear cuts. The north (south-facing) sides of the upper drainage are on the roaded open slopes of Mormon Peak’s south side. Mormon Creek is the first tributary stream entering Lolo Creek upstream of the town of Lolo. The mouth of Mormon Creek

is situated south of Highway 12 at about mile marker 30.9. Mormon Creek generally flows from west-to-east, then south-to-north, and joins main stem Lolo Creek at stream mile 3.8 about 1½ miles above (west of) the town of Lolo. Mormon Creek is a perennial stream, meaning it maintains surface flows for its entire length all year long, although the seasonal low flow can be quite small. In its lowest ½ mile, Mormon Creek is some-what channelized and largely diverted into irrigation systems during the spring to fall irrigating season (when it is usually com-

pletely dewatered). The dewatering is likely problematic for fluvial (migratory) bull trout, which face low to non-existent flows during their summer and fall migration periods, and for resident aquatic spe-cies that suffer direct habitat loss. The one identified fish passage barrier in the Mormon

Creek sub-watershed is a deteriorating cul-vert at a USFS road crossing about 4 miles up the stream. The Lolo NF, in a 1993 survey, described the lower sections of main stem Mormon Creek as being particularly impacted by hu-man use. That survey noted dewatering, heavy livestock (cattle) use in some spots, a shortage of pool habitat and evidence of do-mestic sewage seeping directly into the stream in one location along the lower por-tions of Mormon Creek. Stream habitat con-ditions in Mormon Creek appear to improve in an upstream direction, according to the USFS, but long term, landscape level impacts of logging and road construction are evident. The lack of pool habitat in some upper reaches is likely tied to past logging of large

Mormon Creek sub-watershed

*feet above sea level

Mormon Creek

- 11 -

streamside trees and the subsequent lack of large woody debris recruitment into the stream. Longitudinal fish surveys conducted in 2001 and 2003 by MFWP at five locations indicate that Mormon Creek currently sup-ports only trout. The MFWP surveys found that lower reaches of the stream were domi-nated by 3-9” brook trout and westslope cut-throat trout, with occasional bull trout and brook trout/bull trout hybrids. Cutthroat trout became more prevalent relative to other species at higher sites in the drainage (only WCT were found at the highest site sampled). Bull trout were most common in middle reaches of the main stem, although hybridization with brook trout appears to be common. Tailed frogs were also found in the upper reaches.

According to Lolo NF sur-veys, Mormon Creek has a low av-erage sinuosity (1.1), a modest (4% to 8%) average gradient, an average channel width of about 18 feet, and an average depth of 3 feet or less. This stream is largely composed of riffles and pocket water (over 90%, which indicates a serious shortage of pools), and both pools and riffles are dominated by gravels. The sub-strate is heavily armored, and most pools and almost all of the main channel (except where water ve-locities are highest) have a heavy concentration of fine sand material, likely due to the road system and steep slopes. Restoration opportunities in the Mormon Creek sub-watershed include enhancing re-cruitment of large woody debris placement (to enhance trout habi-

tat and increase habitat complex-ity), repair or replacement of the

one known fish passage-blocking culvert, the screening of irrigation diversions, and the protection of in-stream flows during the irri-gation season. Unneeded roads should be obliterated, no new roads or other soil-disturbing activities should be allowed over 5600 fsl, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sedi-ment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future. Sleeman (Gulch) Creek The Sleeman Creek sub-watershed is 6,131.5 acres, or about 9.6 square miles in size. Sleeman Creek is a small third order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek. Sleeman

Mormon Creek, July 2005 (Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo)

Mormon Creek and Sleeman (Gulch) Creek

- 12 -

Creek is about 6 miles long, with a South Fork about 3½ miles long, both ranging from the northwest to the southeast. Sleeman Creek is the second Lolo Creek tribu-tary above the town of Lolo entering Lolo Creek, and is the first entering from the north side. Sleeman Creek is crossed by Highway 12 at about mile marker 30.8. The Sleeman Creek sub-watershed drops about 3,218 feet in elevation from a high of 6,458 fsl and a low of 3,241 fsl, and joins main stem Lolo Creek from the north at stream mile 3.9 a bit over 1½ miles above the town of Lolo. Roads in the Sleeman Gulch drainage total 65 miles, or about 6.8 miles of road/square mile. Sleeman Creek comes down Sleeman Gulch, which (like Mormon Creek) is a heavily developed drainage for homesites on the western edge of Lolo. The South Fork of Sleeman Creek is split between Lolo NF ownership on the upper end and PCTC on the lower end. The main stem of

Sleeman Creek flows downward through lands almost entirely in private ownership. This drainage was investigated by MFWP in summer 2003 and no perennial reaches or aquatic life were found. Only the lowest half-mile or so of Sleeman Creek has flows that might be considered permanent. Restoration opportunities in the Slee-man Creek (Gulch) sub-watershed are likely limited due to its intermittent nature and low potential as aquatic habitat. Since the drain-age is also near the bottom of the Lolo Creek watershed, it has little influence on overall watershed health. Sleeman Creek (Gulch) sub-watershed

Lower Sleeman Creek Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Sleeman Creek

- 13 -

John Creek John Creek has been diverted into the Leonard ditch for irrigation since the 1940’s, and does not connect to Lolo Creek except during very wet years. The John Creek sub-watershed is 1,367 acres, or about 2.1 square miles in size. John Creek is a very small sec-ond order tributary of the main stem Lolo Creek which, if it still reached main stem Lolo Creek, would enter at mile 8.3 on Lolo Creek’s south side. The spot where John Creek used to join Lolo Creek is just south of Highway 12 at about mile marker 26.9. The upper mile of John Creek is on Lolo NF land, and the lower mile is split between PCTC land and other private land. John Creek drops about 3,713 feet in elevation from a high of 7,098 fsl and a low of 3,385 fsl. Most of the timber harvest in the John Creek drainage has been on private lands owned by PCTC. The John Creek drainage has a little over 2 miles of roads, for a density of about one mile of road/square mile. John Creek drains the NW side of Mor-mon Peak. No fish species were noted in John Creek in the 2003 MFWP survey. Tailed frogs have been observed in John Creek. Cost-shared roads managed by both the Lolo NF and PCTC altered springs that feed the John Creek sub-watershed. Diver-sion of the springs, especially the highest one, prevents discharged waters from reaching and feeding John Creek. Road construction has also contributed high sediment loads in John Creek, according to a local resident, but this stream has not been prioritized by land managers for remediation of this problem. Restoration opportunities include in-stallation of a new diversion structure that allows John Creek to reach the main stem and that doesn’t hinder aquatic organism passage, the protection of in-stream flows during the irrigation season, and the repair of

damage done by logging road construction to the natural springs higher up the drainage.

Upper John Creek, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

John Creek Sub-watershed

John Creek

- 14 -

Mill Creek The Mill Creek sub-watershed is 4,791 acres, or about 7.5 square miles in size. Mill Creek is a large third order tributary of the main stem en-tering the south side of Lolo Creek at mile 10.3. The spot where Mill Creek joins Lolo Creek is just south of Highway 12 at about mile marker 25.1. Mill Creek got its name because the first sawmill in the valley, powered by a diversion of the stream, was built and operated there in the late 1800’s. As one moves upstream on Mill Creek, the first ½ mile or so flows through private land, then up through two sections (T11N, R21W, sections 3 and 9) of roaded and logged PCTC lands, then on for a couple of more miles within lightly disturbed Lolo NF land. Roads in the Mill Creek drainage total 8.7 miles, or about 1.2 miles of road/square mile, but the entire upper sub-watershed above the PCTC lands remains roadless. Mill Creek drops about 5,583 feet in ele-vation from a high of 9,030 fsl and a low of 3,447 fsl. Mill Creek is a boulder/step-pool stream with a high gradient for most of its

length (except on the valley floor). The 2003 MFWP survey noted good numbers of westslope cutthroat trout (2”-7”) throughout, and somewhat lower numbers of brook trout (2”-8”) within the lower reach only. Restoration opportunities in the Mill Creek sub-watershed include possible en-hancement of instream LWD, elimination of illegal irrigation diversions, screening of legal irrigation diversions, and the protection of in-stream flows during the irrigation season. Tevis Creek The Tevis Creek sub-watershed is 1,137.8 acres, or about 1.8 square miles in size. Tevis Creek is a small second order tributary of the main stem entering the south side of Lolo Creek at mile 11.4. Tevis Creek’s confluence with Lolo Creek is just south of Highway 12 at about mile marker 24. Tevis Creek’s upper mile flows through Lolo NF lands. Tevis Creek then flows along the eastern edge of a section (T11N, R21W, section 5) of heavily logged and roaded PCTC land. The lower ½ mile is on privately owned valley bottom within the Lolo Trail/OZ Ranch. Roads in

Mill Creek sub-watershed

Upper Mill Creek, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Mill Creek

- 15 -

the Tevis Creek drainage total 4.8 miles, or about 2.7 miles of road/square mile. There is one known fish passage barrier, a culvert high up in section 8. Tevis Creek drops about 3,733 feet in elevation from a high of 7,223 fsl and a low of 3,490 fsl. The 2003 MFWP survey found only small (2”-6”) westslope cutthroat trout in moderate densities in Tevis

Creek. The Tevis Creek drainage is season-ally grazed by cattle. Restoration opportunities in the Tevis drainage include the careful regulation of livestock grazing to prevent riparian damage, the repair or replacement of the one known fish passage barrier, and the protection of in-stream flows during the irrigation season. Future timber harvest should be prohibited in riparian areas, and unneeded roads should be obliterated. Needed roads and other soil dis-turbances should be managed to prevent ero-sion and sedimentation. South Fork of Lolo Creek The entire South Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed (including the West Fork Butte and Dick drainages) covers 35,588 acres, or about 55.6 square miles. It is the largest sub-watershed in the entire Lolo Creek drainage. The South Fork of Lolo Creek is a significant tributary to Lolo Creek’s main stem. It flows south-to-north, and enters the main stem’s south side at stream mile 12.7 on the Lolo Trail (OZ) Ranch, or just south of Highway 12 at about mile marker 23. The South Fork is about 14½ miles long, and is unique in the Lolo Creek watershed because the upper reaches (about 8 miles) are within the pristine Selway-Bitterroot Wilder-ness Area of the Lolo NF. Below the wilder-ness area, the South Fork flows through about 4 miles of largely unroaded Lolo NF property, skirts through a corner of roaded and logged PCTC land, then through an-other Lolo NF holding (T11N, R21W, sec-tion 6). The South Fork finally flows through about 2 miles of cleared and grazed valley bottom within the privately owned Lolo Trail/OZ Ranch. All the Lolo NF lands in the 24,700+ acres of the South Fork sub-watershed outside of the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area are delineated for commod-Tevis Creek, July 2005

Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Tevis Creek sub-watershed

Tevis Creek and South Fork of Lolo Creek

- 16 -

ity use. Considerable logging and road build-ing has been done here since the late 1950’s (particularly in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and mostly in the Dick Creek and West Fork Butte drainages). Virtually all of this drainage, including the sub-drainages of West Fork Butte Creek, Marshall Creek, Cooper Creek, Dick Creek and Johnny Creek, along with the Martin Creek drainage, lies in highly erosive mica-ceous-schist type landforms. The South Fork drainage has 91.2 miles of roads, with a road density of about 2.4 miles of road/square mile in the area outside of designated wilderness. Nearly all of these roads are in the lower por-tion of the drainage on the west side (West Fork Butte Creek and Dick Creek drainages). According to a 1998 Lolo NF report, road densities above 1.5 to 2 miles of roads/mi² significantly deteriorate stream habitat be-cause of increased sediment production along with increasing width/depth ratios and de-creasing pool frequency. This road network in such a highly erosive area, along with log-ging and other soil disturbing activities, does result in heavy sediment loading, particularly in the West Fork Butte sub-drainage. The South Fork sub-watershed drops about 5,596 feet in elevation from a high of 9,118 fsl and a low of 3,523 fsl. Seventeen square miles or 30% of the sub-watershed is

within the Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, which has a fairly flat valley bottom. Because of the protected wilderness and the inaccessibility of much of the stream, the South Fork is an area of refuge for native spe-cies. Once it leaves the designated wilder-ness, the South Fork is contained within a rather steep valley and has a more confined channel. The steeper portions of the South Fork are composed mostly of step-pool se-quences (most formed by large wood pieces within the active channel) and short runs of riffles and pocket water. Other portions, such as in the upper meadows, are meander-ing with lower flow velocities. There is evidence of human extractive use up to about 3.2 miles upstream of the mouth. Older streamside logging is evident throughout the Lolo Trail/OZ ranch as very old large stumps are visible along the stream.

South Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed

Looking up the South Fork of Lolo Creek Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

South Fork of Lolo Creek

- 17 -

Clearing for pasture is also evident, as are some rip rap, residences, bridges and diver-sions. For about 0.6 miles above the ranch boundary, there are indications of past man-agement activities by the Forest Service. Past partial timber harvest units are common here. A road with a bridge and associated trailhead are located at about mile 2.2 miles upstream of the mouth. An older low stan-dard road (which has been converted to a trail) paral-lels the stream up from the trailhead for about 0.2 miles. The trail contin-ues to mile 2.8 before leaving the streamside area. The trail does not approach the stream until mile 5.9. From mile 2.85 to 3.23, approxi-mately 0.38 of the stream flows thru lands owned by PCTC. Recent partial harvest of riparian trees has reduced some streamside vegetation. The South Fork Lolo Creek drainage sup-ports a variable fish community that appears to be entirely composed of salmonids (trout). On the main stem, upper reaches were not sampled by MFWP in 2003 due to inaccessi-bility, but two locations near the wilderness boundary in the middle of the drainage sup-ported bull trout (4”-8”) and westslope cut-throat trout (2”-7”). It is likely that these species are also present in the upper

(wilderness) portion of the watershed based on unconfirmed angler reports. In lower por-tions of the watershed, brook trout (3”-8”) and brown trout 3”-13”) are prevalent along with westslope cutthroat trout and likely rainbow/cutthroat trout hybrids. Hybridiza-tion between bull trout and brook trout was observed in the lower South Fork of Lolo Creek in the 2003 MFWP survey. A 1994 LNF assessment characterized

the South Fork’s bull trout popula-tion as pre-sent-depressed, while west-slope cut-throat trout were pre-sent-strong. Preservation of large tracts of in-tact habitat, like that of the upper South Fork, is essential for the local

survival of bull trout and other sensitive aquatic species. No sculpins were found in the 2003 MFWP survey. Tailed frogs proba-bly inhabit parts of the South Fork, but were not noted in 2003. The riparian zone of the lowest reaches of the South Fork, in private ownership, has historically been overgrazed and has some old caved in streambanks. The current manage-ment of the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch is demon-strating sound environmental stewardship by protecting riparian areas through fencing to exclude livestock. A 4-foot irrigation diver-sion dam and intake across the South Fork of

A cool pool in the South Fork of Lolo Creek, July 2004 Montana Trout photo

South Fork of Lolo Creek

- 18 -

Lolo Creek above its mouth was a historic barrier to fish passage, but a fish ladder and screen installed in 2004 by MFWP in part-nership with the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch should help to temporarily ameliorate this problem. Long term plans at this site should include installation of permanent grade controls (such as those installed by the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch on its Lolo Creek main stem diver-sions) that allow un-obstructed fish pas-sage year round. Large woody debris, both actual and po-tential, was consid-ered very good in much of the South Fork of Lolo Creek (owing to the utter lack of development activity and human use in much of the

stream area) in a 2004 streamwalk by Montana Trout staff. Restoration op-portunities include the careful regulation of live-stock grazing to prevent riparian damage along the stream’s lower reaches, and the protec-tion of in-stream flows during the irrigation sea-son. Future timber har-vest should be excluded from riparian areas, and unneeded roads should be obliterated. Needed roads and other soil dis-turbances should be managed to prevent ero-

sion and sedimentation. Water quality should be monitored. The South Fork con-tains some of the best remaining aquatic habitat in the Lolo Creek watershed. There-fore, protection of these areas and enhance-ment of neighboring reaches should be a pri-ority in order to help sustain this area as a stronghold upon which further efforts can build.

South Fork of Lolo Creek

Upper South Fork of Lolo Creek, in the wilderness (July 2005) Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Peeking over the ridge into the West Fork Butte sub-watershed Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 19 -

Sub-tributary: West Fork Butte Creek West Fork Butte Creek is a significant third order tributary to Lolo Creek, joining the South Fork from the west about a mile above Lolo Creek’s main stem. West Fork Butte Creek is about 8½ miles long, and drops about 2,567 feet in elevation from a high of 6,241 fsl and a low of 3,674 fsl at the confluence with the South Fork. The upper six miles of West Fork Butte Creek is within logged and roaded Lolo NF land, then it skirts about 2½ miles of edges of logged and roaded PCTC and State of Montana sections before entering the South Fork. The West Fork Butte Creek drainage has been heavily logged as illustrated by its many miles of roads and many clearcuts. The bulk of the South Fork sub-watershed’s roads lie within the West Fork Butte Creek drainage (74.7 miles of roads in a 17.32 mi.² drainage for a road density of 4.31 miles/mi.²).

West Fork Butte Creek is perennial. It is generally shallow and lacking in pools or other channel structure, and has heavy amounts of very fine-grained sand, according to a July 1995 Lolo NF survey. There is sub-stantially lower pool frequency in West Fork Butte Creek than in similar streams surveyed in the watershed. Width is generally less than 14 feet and depth is often less than 1 foot. Lolo NF surveys from the 90’s noted livestock damage, including trampled banks, sedimentation and overgrazed vegetation. However, livestock grazing impacts by cattle from the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch, which is the only permittee here, have dramatically less-ened with a change in ranch management a few years ago. The current management of the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch is very sensitive about minimizing the impacts of grazing on public allotments. Westslope cutthroat trout (4”-7”) and brook trout (2-6”) dominate this system, with low densities of brown trout in the lower reaches. The pattern of relative species abundance was unusual in this system as brook trout were much more abundant than

West Fork Butte Creek

Satellite image (2001) of the West Fork Butte Creek sub-drainage

West Fork Butte Creek sub-drainage - tributary to South Fork Lolo Creek

- 20 -

cutthroat trout at the highest sampling site in 2003. This is opposite of the trend com-monly observed in western Montana tribu-tary streams and is likely related to habitat alterations. No bull trout or sculpins were noted in 2003. A logging road closely follows West Fork Butte Creek for the first 4 miles of the stream’s length. Extensive timber harvest and road building occurred in the West Fork Butte drainage in the ‘80’s and ‘90’s, coupled with a long history of overgrazing. The lack of habitat complexity and altered riparian area of West Fork Butte Creek and the stream’s high sediment load is likely related to this past land use. The poor aquatic habi-tat condition of West Fork Butte Creek is particularly significant in the lower 2½ miles of the stream. The lack of pools and large woody debris in West Fork Butte Creek re-sults in almost no overwintering habitat,

which is the stream’s main habitat limiting factor according to Lolo NF fisheries biologist Brian Riggers in an analysis of the South Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed. There are 12 known fish passage bar-rier culverts in the West Fork Butte Creek drainage. The sub-watershed is affected by the Lolo Trail/OZ Ranch diversion on the South Fork, seasonal dewatering of lower main stem Lolo Creek, and a poorly engi-neered culvert where Elk Meadows Road crosses West Fork Butte Creek just before it joins the South Fork. Restoration opportunities include the essential replacement of pool-forming large woody debris throughout West Fork Butte Creek and the protection of streamside forest so that a LWD source is maintained, al-though sediment loading (and resultant in-filling of spawning gravels and pool sub-strates) will likely continue due to road den-sities and locations. Lolo NF fisheries staff note that large machinery could exacerbate erosion problems if used to place large woody debris. Culverts and other possible sources of sediment and/or barriers to fish passage should be assessed and remediated. Future logging and road building in this drainage should be discouraged, and the existing road network should be evaluated for opportuni-ties for closure and obliteration. The proximity of roads to streams in the West Fork Butte Creek area is a big perma-nent problem, unless those roads are re-sited or obliterated. The roads that are deemed essential in current locations should at least be maintained at BMP standards with all sediment sources contained. Marshall Creek, tributary to West Fork Butte Creek Marshall Creek is a small second order tributary stream that enters West Fork Butte

Upper West Fork Butte Creek drainage Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

West Fork Butte Creek and Marshall Creek

- 21 -

Creek’s south side about 2 miles above the confluence with the South Fork of Lolo Creek. Marshall Creek is surrounded by roaded and logged Lolo NF land. All sites sampled in the 2003 MFWP sur-vey were dominated by eastern brook trout, which was the only species noted. Likely be-cause of highly erosive soils and extensive logging and roading, Marshall Creek carried a

high sediment load along with reduced habi-tat complexity and altered riparian structure as noted in a July 1991 Lolo NF survey. A streamside road along most of Marshall Creek results (in places) in bank encroach-ment and channel confinement in addition to sediment loading. Cooper Creek, tributary to West Fork Butte Creek Cooper Creek is a small second order tributary of West Fork Butte Creek, entering West Fork Butte Creek’s south side about 3 miles upstream of that stream’s mouth on the South Fork of Lolo Creek. Cooper Creek is entirely on roaded Lolo NF land with large clear cuts dating to the 1980’s. The 2003 MFWP survey showed mod-erate numbers of 3”-6” westslope cutthroat trout as the only fish species in Cooper Creek. Because of highly erosive soils and extensive logging and roading, Cooper Creek carries a high sediment load along with re-duced habitat complexity and altered riparian structure as noted in a July 1991 Lolo NF survey. Livestock grazing here by cattle from the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch is only lightly de-tectable, thanks to the progressive and envi-ronmentally sensitive management practices directed by the current ranch manager. A streamside road along most of Cooper Creek results (in places) in bank encroachment and channel confinement in addition to sediment loading. Sub-tributary to the South Fork: Dick Creek Dick Creek is about 7 miles long. It origi-nates on the Idaho border and enters the South Fork of Lolo Creek about 3 miles be-low the wilderness boundary. Dick Creek has Looking down the Cooper Creek drainage,

October 2004 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Marshall, Cooper and Dick Creeks

Clearcuts dominate the Marshall Creek sub-drainage of West Fork Butte Creek.

Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 22 -

high sediment levels, which (like in Johnny Creek) is partially natural and partially due to past land management practices, according to a 1993 report written by Lolo NF fisheries biologist Richard Kramer. Steep gradients in Dick Creek’s lower end, typified by cascades and waterfalls among large boulders, likely prevents upstream fish passage. A culvert about a mile up Dick Creek in section 27 is

most likely a seasonal/selective barrier for further upstream passage. A small ½ mile spawning area above the steep cascades is likely important for resident native fish repro-duction. Dick Creek has been roaded and logged over the last century, and has a mine (the “Ward Lode”) site that is also a chronic

source of sediment (as noted in the 1993 re-port written by Lolo NF fisheries biologist Richard Kramer). The human extractive use of the Dick Creek sub-watershed, like with West Fork Butte Creek, provides a contrast against the relative purity and undisturbed condition of the South Fork of Lolo Creek and Johnny Creek. Restoration opportunities include the repair or replacement of the known fish pas-sage barrier culvert, and amelioration of the sediment sources. Existing roads should be evaluated for closure, upgrades or decommis-sioning. Sub-tributary to the South Fork: Johnny Creek Johnny Creek is in the high, steep coun-try between Dick Creek (which it joins) and the South Fork. Like Dick Creek, Johnny Creek has steep gradients with cascades at its lower end, which possibly prevents upstream fish passage, and a short 0.5 mile spawning area above that set of cascades. A 1997 Lolo NF R1/R4 report noted evidence of old but intensive riparian harvest in Johnny Creek’s lower reaches. Johnny Creek has heavy amounts of fine-grained sediment, which may be largely natural although two unnamed

Dick and Johnny Creeks

The Dick Creek sub-drainage and Skookum Butte (in rear). Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Johnny Creek sub-drainage

Dick Creek sub-drainage - tributary to South Fork Lolo Creek

- 23 -

tributaries in section 23 may contribute to the loading. The Ravalli county line cuts across the head of the Johnny Creek drainage. Johnny Creek is about 3 miles long, and drops about 1,335 feet in elevation from a high of 6,255 fsl and a low of 4,920 fsl at the confluence with Dick Creek. Johnny Creek probably supports moder-ate numbers of westslope cutthroat trout and possibly some resident bull trout, although sampling data are needed to confirm this. Overall, aquatic habitat conditions in Johnny Creek appear to be good, as few anthropo-genic (human-caused) impacts are evident. The condition of trout habitat in Johnny Creek is marginal, according to the Lolo NF, due to heavy sediment loads that make the stream relatively sterile.

Woodman Creek

Woodman Creek sub-watershed

Johnny Creek and Woodman Creek

Woodman Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Johnny Creek Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 24 -

Woodman Creek is a small second order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek. Entering from the north at mile 12.9 within the Lolo Trail/OZ Ranch, Woodman Creek’s channel (blink and you’ll miss it!) is crossed by High-way 12 at about mile marker 22.8. Woodman Creek’s flow is diverted into irrigation during the growing season via a small dammed pond about 0.5 miles north of Lolo Creek. Woodman Creek is about 4½ miles long, and is perennial. The Lolo NF’s 1994 surveyor felt that this barrier should be maintained to protect the possible genetic purity of westslope cutthroat trout isolated upstream, although the genetic purity of this population has ever been tested. The land-owner returns stranded brown trout to Lolo Creek when irrigation diversions cease each fall. The upper reaches of Woodman Creek are on Lolo NF land, and the rest flows through PCTC and private lands (the latter not surveyed by MFWP in 2003). There are 42.8 miles of roads in the 8.1 mi2 of the Woodman Creek sub-watershed, for a density of 5.3 miles of road/mi2.. MFWP sampled two sites on Woodman Creek in 2003. The lower site supported a mix of brook trout, westslope cutthroat trout, rainbow trout and likely hybrids of these spe-cies. The upper site (section 20) supported only westslope cutthroat trout. Restoration opportunities include large woody debris enhancement, the screening of irrigation diversions, and the protection of in-stream flows during the irrigation season. Unneeded roads should be obliterated, the road along the lower reaches of the stream should be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Fur-ther timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large

woody debris recruitment in the future. If genetic purity is not an issue in upper Wood-man Creek, the fish passage barrier should be corrected.

Camp Creek

Woodman and Camp Creeks

Camp Creek sub-watershed

Camp Creek sub-watershed Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 25 -

Camp Creek is on the north side of the watershed, and enters main stem Lolo Creek at mile marker 20.7 on Highway 12 (entering Lolo Creek at stream mile 15.2). Camp Creek is a small, second order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek, enclosed for most of its length within rather steep valley sides. It drops 2,631 feet from a high of 6,229 fsl, and is about 4½ miles long. It flows north-to-south, parallel to the Bear Creek sub-watershed a short distance to the west. Camp Creek is believed to be perennial, and probably is in the upper reaches, but a June 1994 Lolo NF survey found no surface water in the lowest 1.5 miles. Camp Creek’s lowest sections are PCTC lands managed for timber production, with a small amount of other private lands on the main stem Lolo Creek valley bottom. The upper reaches are almost all within Lolo NF lands. Only westslope cutthroat trout in the 2”-7” range were found in the 2003 MFWP survey. The 3.6 mi2 Camp Creek sub-watershed has 24 miles of roads for a density of 6.7 miles/mi2. Roads closely paral-lel most of Camp Creek. A perched culvert about a mile up may be a complete fish pas-sage barrier, and another culvert even farther up is at least a seasonal barrier. Restoration opportunities include enhancement of large woody debris (to en-hance trout habitat and increase complexity), the screening of the irrigation diversion, and the protection of in-stream flows during the irrigation season. Unneeded roads should be obliterated, the roads along the lower reaches of the stream should be re-sited, and sedi-mentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future.

Bear Creek Bear Creek is a small, third order tribu-tary of main stem Lolo Creek, enclosed for most of its length within rather steep valley sides. Bear Creek is on the north side of the watershed, and enters main stem Lolo Creek

Bear Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Camp and Bear Creeks

Bear Creek sub-watershed

- 26 -

just south of mile marker 19.8 on Highway 12 (entering Lolo Creek at stream mile 16.3). Bear Creek is about 7½ miles long and flows north-to-south. Bear Creek’s headwaters are within Lolo NF holdings. Bear Creek drops about 3,208 feet in elevation from a high of 6,862 fsl and a low of 3,654 fsl at the conflu-ence with the main stem of Lolo Creek. Af-ter leaving Lolo NF lands, the remaining three miles or so of Bear Creek flows down through mostly PCTC lands managed for timber production and other private lands. Bear Creek has a mostly gravel substrate, along with an equal amount of sand and other fines in the mid-to lower reaches. The upper reaches are composed of step-pools and pocket water. Most habitat structures in the mid- to lower reaches in Bear Creek are formed of woody debris (mostly cut logs). Upper reaches have a higher incidence of LWD jams formed from large grand fir. Woody debris log jams in Bear Creek are commonly formed of old, rotten logs of inde-termine age, making pool retention and re-tention of riparian trees more important. A 2002-2003 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks (MFWP) survey found brook trout of up to 11” dominating the middle sections, and small westslope cutthroat dominating the upper reaches. Introduced brook trout (range 3”-8”) and small rainbow trout (4”) dominate the lowest reaches. Brown trout are also found throughout Bear Creek. Hy-brid cutthroat/rainbow were noted in several Lolo NF surveys as matching abundance numbers for westslope cutthroat, but such field identifications are a guess without ge-netic testing; for instance, when MFWP field data says rainbow trout, this means that mor-phological rainbow trout characteristics are present, although most of the fish are likely hybrids. Quite a few tailed frogs were noted in a July 1994 Lolo NF survey.

A road closely parallels most of Bear Creek, especially in sections 24 and 13, and Bear Creek is crossed once on PCTC lands in section 24, about a mile above Lolo Creek. Bear Creek is lacking in high quality pools according to the 1994 Lolo NF survey, and has two fish passage barrier culverts as identi-fied in the Lolo NF’s 2002 culvert analysis. That analysis did not state whether these cul-verts are complete or partial. Numerous campsites were noted in the area by the Lolo NF surveyor. Steep reaches (up to 6%) were noted in the June 1994 Lolo NF survey, which may pose a passage barrier during high flows. No other fish passage barrier culverts are known in the Bear Creek drainage, al-though the PCTC road crossing in section 24 is questionable. The riparian area has an Engelmann spruce/Douglas fir/Subalpine fir overstory (depending on location) and an understory of alder and red-osier dogwood. Where found, the spruce canopy probably relates to earlier riparian logging. Existing riparian growth is robust and extends for sev-eral feet from each bank. The middle reaches, at least in 1994, had lots of beaver activity. Bear Creek’s limited numbers of pools are at risk due to the need for new LWD re-cruitment. Spawning and rearing habitat is good in the lower reaches and very good in the higher reaches, according to the June 1994 Lolo NF survey. Pool tail-outs in the upper reaches had many caddis pupae, and the same reaches had very little silt. Much of the drainage has been roaded and substantial timber harvesting has occurred. Restoration opportunities include the bucking of perched downed trees that span the channel to allow immersion for creation of pools by scouring, allowing for a tree length of 1.5 to 2 times bankfull width to as-sure in-stream structure stability. Riparian trees should be allowed to grow, die, and fall into the stream to replace rapidly aging LWD

...Bear Creek

- 27 -

and help create needed pools. The road alongside most of Bear Creek should be ad-dressed where it limits floodplain, water qual-ity or natural stream dynamics. Identified culvert barriers should be fixed.

Clark Creek

Clark Creek is about 2 miles long, and has a sub-watershed area of 1,238 acres or 1.9 mi2. Clark Creek lies on the Lolo Creek wa-tershed's north side, and connects to the main stem at stream mile 19.2. Clark Creek flows north-to-south and drops 2,549 feet from a high of 6,291 fsl and a low of 3,742 fsl. Its highest ¼ mile is on Lolo NF lands, then it flows down through about 1¼ miles of fairly pristine DNRC School Trust Land (T12N, R22W, sec. 16) before going another mile through a heavily-logged PCTC-owned sec-tion (21) and ending in a private holding at the stream’s confluence with main stem Lolo Creek. That confluence lies just south of Highway 12’s mile marker 17.1. The Clark Creek sub-watershed con-tains 22 miles of roads for a very high density of 11.6 miles of road/mi2. There are no known fish passage barrier culverts, but a road closely parallels most of the stream and crosses it in the DNRC section. Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be obliter-ated, the roads along the lower reaches of the stream should be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future. Davis Creek Davis Creek is a small, second order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek about 3 miles long on the south side of the watershed. Davis Creek’s confluence is located south of High-way 12’s mile marker 16.3 and at stream mile 20.2 on Lolo Creek’s south side. Most of Davis Creek is on Lolo NF land, with the lowest half-mile on private land. There are

Clark and Davis Creeks

Clark Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Clark Creek sub-watershed

- 28 -

two known fish passage barrier culverts where the road crosses Davis Creek in section 31. A few small westslope cutthroat trout and uni-dentified cutthroat or rainbow trout or cut-throat/rainbow hybrids were found in the 2003 MFWP survey. Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-

plexity. The known culvert barriers should be re-engineered and replaced. Unneeded roads in the Davis Creek sub-watershed should be obliterated, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future.

Grave Creek Grave Creek is a significant third order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek. It enters Lolo Creek from the north at stream mile 20.3, just south of Highway 12’s mile marker 20. Grave Creek is about 8 miles long, and the East Fork of Grave Creek (entering about 1½ miles up Grave Creek) is about 5 miles long. The 13.3 mi2 (8,520.5 acres) of the Grave Creek sub-watershed have over 73 miles of road, for a density of 5.5 miles of road/mi2. Grave Creek’s upper section is on Lolo NF, the middle section is within heavily logged PCTC land, and the lowest reach is composed of parcels of private land. There are 4 known fish passage barrier culverts in the Grave Creek sub-watershed: one about 1½ miles up at a road crossing, another at a road crossing on the East Fork above the con-

Davis Creek and Grave Creek

Grave Creek sub-watershed

Davis Creek sub-watershed

Davis Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 29 -

fluence, and two more about 3 miles up in section 7. Low numbers of cutthroats (in the middle and upper reaches only) were noted in the 2003 MFWP survey, and although this tribu-tary likely historically supported bull trout (according to anecdotal sources), none were found in 2003. The other trout species noted in the 2003 MFWP survey were brook trout, brown trout and rainbow trout, all introduced species. Sculpins were present in the lower reaches. The lower section’s riparian zone was in poor condition in 2003 due to heavy livestock grazing. Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be obliter-ated, the roads along the stream should ide-ally be re-sited, and sedimentation from exist-ing roads should be ameliorated. Further tim-

ber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future.

Howard Creek Howard Creek is a fourth order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek located 2 miles west of Grave Creek’s confluence at stream mile 22.4 on Lolo Creek’s north side, crossed by Highway 12 at mile marker 14. Howard Creek flows west to east through alternating sections of roaded and logged PCTC and Lolo NF land. The Howard Creek sub-watershed has over 89 miles of roads within its 19.5 mi2 (12,493.5 acres) area for a density of 4.5 miles of road/mi2. There are 11 known fish passage barrier culverts in the Howard Creek drain-age (see graphic, next page). Howard Creek, which drops about 2,000 feet over roughly 8 miles, has a very low gradient and only a few pools. A road running alongside the length of Howard Creek crosses many of the bad cul-verts. An undated Lolo NF survey from the 1990’s noted many recent blowdowns of tim-ber in the riparian area and guessed that soil-covered rootwads associated with this blow-down were a source of excessive fine organic matter lightly covering the substrate and making the water quite dark. Abundant

Grave Creek and Howard Creek

Howard Creek sub-watershed

Lower Grave Creek sub-watershed, 7/05 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 30 -

streambank impacts, such as broken-down banks, from past live-stock use were noted as healing in the undated Lolo NF survey. Beavers live in Howard Creek’s culvert at Highway 12. The 2003 MFWP survey noted lots of shade, large in-stream wood and a culvert that posed no barrier to fish movement in the lower section. Westslope cut-throat trout are found throughout Howard Creek, but are most nu-merous in the lower reaches. The same goes for brook trout in the 4”-10” range. Only one rainbow trout (9”) was noted in the 2003 survey of How-ard Creek. Brown trout in the 4”-7” range were also most numerous in the lower reaches. In the late summer of 2003, the North Fork Howard Fire burned through the head-waters of the drainage. The fire exacerbated the impacts of past intensive logging of natu-rally occurring forest in this area (see photo, next page). Interestingly, the undated Lolo NF survey found that the North Fork of Howard Creek had many trout, many small debris jams composed of logging slash, and a

full canopy of alder and dogwood covering the stream in many places. That survey also found culverts in the North Fork that had no apparent function, since there were no associ-ated roads visible. Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be closed and/or obliterated, and ideally the road along Howard Creek should be re-sited to a better location. Sedimentation from existing roads

...Howard Creek

Fish passage blocking culverts (blue dots) in the Howard Creek sub-watershed. Red lines are roads.

Lower Howard Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 31 -

and other sources should be assessed and ameliorated. The many fish barrier culverts should be re-engineered and replaced, and those in the North Fork should probably just be removed altogether. Riparian areas in Howard Creek need protection, both to re-duce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future.

Chief Joseph Gulch

Chief Joseph Gulch’s confluence with the main stem is located just south of mile marker 13.5 on Highway 12 and at stream mile 23.0 on Lolo Creek’s south side. Chief Joseph Gulch is a very small, second order tributary of main stem Lolo Creek about 2_ miles long, with a sub-watershed area of 2.4 mi2 (1,540.1 acres). Chief Joseph Gulch’s upper reaches are on the Lolo NF and lack water seasonally. The lower half-mile flows through logged PCTC land. This sub-watershed drops 2,270 feet from a high point of 6,130 fsl. There are 6.7 miles of road in the Chief Joseph Gulch sub-watershed, for a density of 2.8 miles of road/mi2. The one known fish passage barrier culvert is in section 6, where the Lolo NF road crosses the stream. Only small westslope cutthroats and immature cutthroats or rainbows were found in the 2003 MFWP survey of Chief Joseph Gulch.

Howard Creek and Chief Joseph Gulch

Chief Joseph Gulch sub-watershed, Oct. ‘04 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Chief Joseph Gulch sub-watershed

Forest Remains: the logged, roaded and burned North Fork of Howard Creek, 7/05.

Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 32 -

Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be obliter-ated, the roads along the stream should be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Protect riparian areas, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future.

Cloudburst Creek Cloudburst Creek is a small, second or-der tributary of main stem Lolo Creek, which it enters about 4 miles downstream of Lolo Hot Springs at stream mile 24.2 on the south side (just south of Highway 12’s mile marker 12.4). Land ownership in this 6.5 mi2 (4,146.9 acre) sub-watershed is predomi-nantly Lolo NF, and a logged-over PCTC sec-tion dominates the lower half of the drainage. The middle drainage also shows recent timber harvest. No fish passage barrier culverts are known in the Cloudburst Creek drainage. Portions of this drainage were affected by a microburst that caused extensive timber blowdown in the Lolo Creek drainage in 1996. This tributary likely historically supported westslope cutthroat trout, sculpins and possi-bly a run of bull trout from the Bitterroot

River via Lolo Creek. MFWP sampling in 2003 revealed that introduced brook trout (2”-11”) now dominate the upper, middle and lower reaches of the stream. Westslope cut-throat trout of similar size are also present throughout the drainage in moderate num-bers. In 2003, MFWP also detected low numbers of brown trout, bull trout and brook/bull trout hybrids. Westslope cutthroat trout near the mouth are also likely hybridized with rainbow trout. No sculpins were observed in 2003.

Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be closed and/or obliterated. Proposals for further tim-ber harvest in this drainage should be bal-anced against existing logging impacts. Sedi-mentation from existing roads and other sources should be assessed and ameliorated. Riparian areas along Cloudburst Creek need protection, both to reduce fine sediment

Chief Joseph Gulch and Cloudburst Creek

Cloudburst Creek sub-watershed, Oct. ‘04 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Cloudburst Creek sub-watershed

- 33 -

transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future. Martin Creek Martin Creek is a small second order tributary of the main stem Lolo Creek that enters from the south at mile 27.0. Martin Creek is about 2.5 miles long and has an area of 2.4 mi2 (1,524 acres). 11.3 miles of road are in the Martin Creek drainage, for a den-sity of 4.7 miles of road/mi2. Martin Creek’s upper reach is in a section of PCTC land in-tensively managed for timber production, and the middle reach is in an unroaded and unlogged section of Lolo NF land. The low-est third of a mile is on private land. The 2003 MFWP survey noted low num-bers of both westslope cutthroat trout and eastern brook trout in the lower reach, which had poor habitat quality. The upper reach was low in water and had only westslope cut-throat trout in the 4” range. Restoration opportunities in the Martin Creek sub-watershed include possible large woody debris replacement to enhance trout habitat and increase habitat complexity. Un-needed roads should be obliterated, the road along the lower reaches of the stream should be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber

harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruitment in the future. Upper Lolo Creek watershed The portions of the Lolo Creek watershed upstream of the mouth of Granite Creek, in-cluding the Granite Creek, West Fork of Lolo Creek, Lee Creek, East Fork of Lolo Creek and Lost Park Creek drainages, have been long noted as sources for sediment in main stem Lolo Creek. In 2003, the Montana De-partment of Environmental Quality released the Upper Lolo TMDL; the Lolo NF’s Upper Lolo Assessment, released in 2005, addressed the same set of issues. Other participating landowners are the Montana Department of Transportation (whose winter sanding of Highway 12 is a known contributor of sedi-ment) and PCTC. Management practices being developed and implemented for the upper Lolo area in-clude closing and obliterating some roads, upgrading others, replacing culverts, reducing highway sanding and monitoring for effective-ness. All of the following tributary streams in this report are within the upper Lolo TMDL area.

Martin Creek and the Upper Lolo Creek watershed

Martin Creek sub-watershed

Martin Creek sub-watershed, July 2005 Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 34 -

Granite Creek Granite Creek is another significant tributary of Lolo Creek and entering the main stem just below Lolo Hot Springs at stream mile 29.4 on the north side and at Highway 12 mile marker 7.7. Granite Creek is about 9½ miles long. The Granite Creek sub-watershed is probably the largest source of sediment in the entire Lolo Creek watershed, owing to its high and steep location (it abuts the Idaho divide) and the highly erosive mi-caceous-schist granitic soils that dominate this area. The drainage has 87 miles of road in its 21.1 mi2 (13,515.6 acre) area, for a den-sity of 4.1 miles of road/mi2. There are 20 identified fish passage barrier culverts in the Granite Creek sub-watershed. Like Cloudburst Creek and Grave Creek, this tributary likely historically supported healthy populations of westslope cutthroat trout, sculpins and bull trout. Bull trout (in low numbers) and westslope cutthroats were found in the 2003 MFWP survey. Some westslope cutthroats had parasites. Brook trout were most common in the middle and lower reaches. Low densities of fish were noted in upper reaches. Hybridization be-tween bull trout and brookies, which is be-lieved to be one cause (among many) of the

threatened status of bull trout, was observed in Granite Creek. Restoration opportunities include possi-ble large woody debris replacement to en-hance trout habitat and increase habitat com-plexity. Unneeded roads should be obliter-ated (especially jammer roads in this danger-ously erosive area), the road along the stream should ideally be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated (especially considering that this sub-watershed is within the area targeted by both the Montana Department of Environmental Quality and the Lolo NF for restoration to address sedimentation). Fish barrier culverts should be fixed, those roads deemed neces-sary should be brought to Best Management Practice (BMP) standards, and structures like road bars, sediment traps and roadside filters should be installed to protect water quality. Fur-ther timber harvest, if merited given existing sub-watershed im-pacts, should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to increase large woody debris recruit-ment in the future.

Granite Creek

Granite Creek sub-watershed

Barrier culverts (blue dots) in the Granite Creek drainage

- 35 -

Sub-tributary to Granite Creek: North (Fork of Granite) Creek North (Fork of Granite) Creek is a significant tributary of Granite Creek. Like the South Fork of Lolo Creek, this stream’s drainage is largely unroaded and undeveloped, making it an area of refuge for native species. However, its small size and accessibility make it more vulnerable to habitat loss. Restoration opportunities are primarily to protect the unroaded and undeveloped condition of this sub-tributary. Barriers to fish pas-sage should be assessed in terms of genetic issues prior to repair work. East Fork of Lolo Creek The East Fork of Lolo Creek is a significant third order tributary of the main stem Lolo Creek, which begins where the East Fork joins the West Fork of Lolo Creek about a mile above Lolo Hot Springs at stream mile 31.0 and at Highway 12 mile marker 6.3. The East Fork of

Lolo Creek is about 10 miles long, with an area of 31.6 mi2 (20,255.2 acres). This sub-watershed has 135.3 miles of road (the high-est road mileage of all sub-watersheds), for a density of 4.3 miles of road/mi2. There are 13 identified fish passage barrier culverts in the East Fork drainage excluding the Lost Park sub-watershed (see graphic, next page). Westslope cutthroat in the 3”-8” range dominate the East Fork, although a few brook trout (2”-8”) and brown trout (10”) were found in the 2003 MFWP survey. Brook trout numbers almost equaled westslope cut-throat numbers in the middle sections of the

North (Fork of Granite) Creek and East Fork of Lolo Creek

2001 aerial view, lower East Fork of Lolo Creek (Highway 12 in upper left)

Lolo NF file photo

North (Fork of Granite) Creek sub-tributary

- 36 -

East Fork above Lost Park Creek in the 2003 survey. The East Fork is closely paral-leled by a road and flows mostly through PCTC lands that are managed for timber production and Lolo NF land in ‘checkerboard’ ownership. The upper portions, on Lolo NF land, have good habitat. No sculpins were ob-served in 2003 anywhere in the East Fork. Although not detected in MFWP’s survey, this tributary likely also historically supported bull trout and may still contain low numbers. Cattle seasonally graze the East Fork of Lolo Creek drainage. A 1995 Lolo NF report noted that grazing standards are regularly ex-ceeded in the East Fork, but a change in management of the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch (which has all the permits for livestock graz-ing in the Lolo Creek watershed) has dra-matically reversed that trend. The East Fork of Lolo Creek has not been grazed at all in several years, and grazing impacts here are almost impossible to detect. Restoration opportunities in the East Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed include possible large woody debris replacement to enhance trout habitat and increase habitat complexity, although extensive debris jams formed from old logging waste already creates pool habitat in the East Fork. Ideally, the

East Fork of Lolo Creek and Lost Park Creek

road along the stream should be re-sited, un-needed roads should be obliterated, and sedi-mentation from existing roads should be ame-liorated. Culverts that serve as fish passage barriers and/or sediment sources should be replaced. Further timber harvest should be restricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to in-crease large woody debris recruitment in the future. The East Fork of Lolo Creek was once a cool refuge shaded by thick streamside forest, and was known for harboring good numbers of westslope cutthroat.

Sub-tributary to East Fork of Lolo Creek: Lost Park Creek

Lost Park Creek is a small third order tributary stream that enters the East Fork of

Lost Park Creek sub-tributary

Fish passage barrier culvert locations identified in the East Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed. Red lines are roads.

East Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed

- 37 -

Lolo Creek from the west about 3½ miles above the confluence with the West Fork. Lost Park Creek is one of the most heavily impacted, and one of the most sensitive, drainages in the entire Lolo Creek watershed owing to its elevation and geology. Lost Park Creek (area=9.1mi2) contains lots of fine sediment, which accumulates in pools given the stream’s relatively low gradient. There are 11 known fish passage barrier culverts in the Lost Park Creek drainage (see graphic above). Westslope cutthroat trout and, to a lesser extent, brook trout, are found through-out. White parasitic worms were attached behind the pectoral fin of all westslope cut-throat trout collected in Lost Park Creek’s lower reaches in MFWP’s 2003 survey. No parasites were found in the upper reaches. One 11” brown trout was noted in the lower section. Almost all of Lost Park Creek is on land managed for timber production by PCTC and the Lolo NF. Restoration opportunities in the Lost Park Creek sub-tributary drainage include selective large woody debris replacement to enhance trout habitat and increase habitat complexity. The problem culverts should be fixed. Unneeded roads should be obliterated,

the road along the lower reaches of the stream should be re-sited, and sedimentation from existing roads should be ameliorated. Further timber harvest should again be re-stricted to areas away from the stream, both to reduce fine sediment transport and to in-crease large woody debris recruitment in the future.

West Fork of Lolo Creek The West Fork of Lolo Creek is a sig-nificant third order tributary of Lolo Creek, whose main stem is created at the confluence of the East Fork and West Fork at mile 31.0. This stream, like all others above Granite Creek’s confluence with main stem Lolo Creek, is within Montana DEQ’s Upper Lolo TMDL and the Lolo NF’s Upper Lolo Assess-ment. Both documents call for extensive ac-tivities to curb the input of fine sediments into Lolo Creek. As often noted by the DEQ and Lolo NF, the West Fork of Lolo Creek contains large amounts of fine sediments, which are likely a result of Highway 12 sanding opera-tions in the winter (although logging roads and highly erodible soils are also thought to contribute). Highway 12 crosses the West Fork shortly after the confluence with the East Fork and closely follows the West Fork

Lost Park Creek and the West Fork of Lolo Creek

West Fork of Lolo Creek sub-watershed

Fish passage barrier culverts (blue dots) in the Lost Park Creek sub-tributary drainage.

- 38 -

up to Lolo Pass. The West Fork of Lolo Creek is about 6 miles long, with an area of 12 mi2 (7,698.7 acres). There are only two identified fish passage barriers in the drainage, both on unnamed tributary streams. The Montana Department of Transportation is currently curtailing the use of traction sand on Highway 12 because of concerns about sediment delivery into Lolo Creek, and is in-stead increasing the use of ice-melting mag-nesium chloride in this high elevation area near Lolo Pass. Despite what appears to be good fish habitat, the 2003 MFWP survey noted low fish densities in the West Fork of Lolo Creek. A couple of brown trout in the 2”-5” range were found in the lower section beside the Lee Creek campground. Small westslope cut-throat trout in low to moderate numbers are in the middle and upper sections, and small brook trout were found in low to moderate numbers in the lowest and middle sections. Good numbers of sculpins were observed in

this stream. This stream also likely supported good numbers of bull trout historically. Restoration opportunities include possible (and selective) large woody debris placement (to enhance trout habitat and in-crease pool frequency). Unneeded roads should be obliterated and sedimentation from existing roads and Highway 12 should be ameliorated. In an ideal world, Highway 12 would have a route different than along the stream. Riparian areas should of course be protected, both to reduce fine sediment trans-port and to increase large woody debris re-cruitment in the future. Sub-tributary to West Fork of Lolo Creek: Lee Creek

Lee Creek is a small second order tributary of the main stem Lolo Creek that joins the West Fork of Lolo Creek about a half mile above the confluence with the East Fork. Lee Creek is within the Upper Lolo TMDL area. The 3½ miles of Lee Creek, with a drainage area of 3.9 mi2 (2,511.7 acres), has 26.5 miles of road for a density of 6.8 miles of road/mi2. A road runs alongside almost the entire length of Lee Creek, which is responsible for most of the 13 known bar-rier culverts, but again the Lolo NF’s 2002 culvert analysis does not specify whether

West Fork of Lolo Creek and Lee Creek

Lee Creek sub-tributary

The West Fork of Lolo Creek winds along Highway 12 towards Lolo Pass. Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

- 39 -

these barriers are partial or complete for all species at all life stages. Lee Creek was notable in the 2003 MFWP survey for having low densities of westslope cutthroat trout in the lower reaches

and none in the upper reaches. Brook trout in the 4”-9” range dominated all reaches sur-veyed. An 11” brown trout from the camp-ground area was the only other trout species found in Lee Creek. Restoration opportunities include ameliorating the excessive sedimentation in the stream. All problem culverts should be fixed, and diligent efforts put into reducing road density. This is a stream whose habitat is likely not limited by available LWD. Conclusions and Summary The Lolo Creek watershed in 2005 re-flects a simple yet pervasive theme that has dominated land use here for over 150 years: make the land yield a living. That idea was solidly rooted in the minds of pioneering set-tlers, and is still on the minds of many new-comers to the watershed. This once-benign concept mattered little when the area was sparsely settled and nature could heal scat-tered patches of damage. As years passed, however, the impacts of people have become overwhelming. The idea that human impacts are somehow always tolerable as long as the end is justified reached a zenith when High-way 12 was constructed almost 50 years ago without regard to dramatic reductions in main stem Lolo Creek’s meander pattern. More recently, excessive logging in the 70’s and 80’s likewise demonstrated a disregard (unintentionally or intentionally) for cumula-tive environmental impacts to the watershed. And throughout, irrigated agriculture has chronically dewatered main stem Lolo Creek and its tributary streams, while historic live-stock grazing negatively impacted native plant communities, riparian areas and stream-banks (the current management of the OZ/Lolo Trail ranch is fortunately reversing that trend). Sadly, the tradition carries on today with relentless subdivision and development

Fish passage barrier culverts (blue dots) in the Lee Creek sub-tributary drainage.

Aerial view, Lee Creek sub-tributary, 7/05. Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

Lee Creek, Conclusions and Summary

- 40 -

of once-rural lands for the sake of financial gain and the appeasement of endless appetites for homesites with a “country flavor”. Almost everything that people have done to the Lolo Creek watershed over the last 150 years is excusable. Most of these negative impacts were brought on by the sim-ple need to feed families and put a roof over their heads. However, the water-shed has paid a steep price that is still being paid. Perhaps the most insidious and dread-ful impact, however, is not in the form of im-poverished fish habitat or eroded hillsides. It is in the inherent ability of each passing generation to view the world as a baseline, forgetting how things were for former generations. The result in the Lolo Creek watershed is an all-too willing acceptance of environmentally degraded places as “normal”. However, a different land ethic is growing in the watershed. The roots of this ethic were probably always here, dem-onstrated by the appreciation of place that brought so many here and that many resi-dents have for the area. But, as the water-shed nears the limits of sustaining growth without visibly losing its rural character and ecological integrity, more and more of these

same residents are supplementing their appre-ciation with the action of restoration. One major human advancement is in the scientific understanding of the delicate balance and complexity of biological systems we now possess. This understanding allows us to now plan land uses so that adverse im-pacts are minimized, and to restore the natu-

ral produc-tivity and bounty of the land. In the Lolo Creek wa-tershed, the next few dec-ades should demon-strate whether people can live and work here without giving up what is spe-cial and unique about this

place. The purpose of this report is to provide some basis for understanding the watershed and helping it heal. There are those who reject the idea that anything is wrong with the Lolo Creek watershed, and those who view habitat resto-ration as another means of imposing restric-tions on various rights and privileges. This report will likely have limited value for them. Those who value this report will want to make the watershed a better place: for them-selves, for all the plants and animals that call this place home, and for unborn generations of people to come.

Conclusions and Summary

Maclay Ditch Diversion Dam, Oct. ‘02 - seasonal fish passage bar-rier affecting 30+ upstream miles of main stem Lolo Creek and

part of the fish-entraining Maclay irrigation diversion

- 41 -

My recommendation is to start with a whole sub-watershed. My choice is the South Fork of Lolo Creek. Here is an ecologically intact and well-functioning drainage (the South Fork above Dick Creek) coupled with a set of impacted drainages (Dick Creek, Marshall Creek, Cooper Creek and West Fork Butte Creek). The challenges here are two-fold: preserve the biological quality of the South Fork while restoring biological quality to the other drainages. In this report’s discus-sion of each drainage are details to guide those who wish to improve the watershed. This report is also a guide to bringing care and attention to each tributary in the watershed. Every drainage in the watershed needs this care and attention if these streams are to support thriving wild trout populations in the future. The natural erosion of granitic soils will likely limit the productivity of many of Lolo Creek’s tributaries, but these limita-tions are minor compared to the ones im-posed by streamside roads and riparian com-munity degradation. Another means of using this report as a guide for restorative action is to simply join the growing effort to bring healing to the up-per Lolo Creek watershed (everything up-stream of the mouth of Granite Creek). As

mentioned, the Lolo NF, PCTC, Montana DEQ, Montana Dept. of Transportation and many others have already launched a cam-paign to ease sediment loading into Granite Creek West Fork of Lolo Creek, Lee Creek, East Fork of Lolo Creek and Lost Park Creek. Because this area has some of the highest densities of roads in the watershed, and be-cause the high elevation of granitic parent material creates extreme erosion risks, the upper Lolo is well suited to be the focus of a coordinated and comprehensive restoration campaign. But, regardless of which of any one of the Lolo Creek watershed’s 20 tribu-tary streams receives support for restoration, the message of this report is clear. The Lolo Creek watershed has seen tough love for 150 years, and reversing that trend requires peo-ple to become familiar with the entire water-shed and to actively work to heal each part. Hopefully this report will assist in that effort.

The Lolo Creek Watershed, looking west from Lolo with the mouths of Sleeman Gulch on the right and Mormon Creek on the left.

Montana Trout/Lighthawk photo

A Special Note of Thanks Project Lighthawk, “The Wings of Conserva-tion”, provided invaluable aerial transportation for this report, notably through the volunteer services of pilots Dave Downing and Reg Good-win. Lighthawk’s dedication to its cause can be seen with a visit to http://www.lighthawk.org.

- 42 -

Alt, David D. and D. Hyndman. 1986. Roadside Geology of Montana. Mountain Press Publish- ing. Missoula, Montana. Carpenter, Mary (ed.). 1976. Lolo Creek Reflections. Lolo Women’s Club. Economy Publishers. Missoula, Montana. Dishman, Bill. 2005. Personal Communication. Lolo Creek resident. Grenager, Kim. 2005. Personal communication. Lolo Creek watershed/John Creek resident. Missoula, Montana. Hendrickson, Shane. 2005, various times. Personal communication. Lolo National Forest Fish- eries Biologist. Missoula, Montana. Hoffman, Joe and T. Sylte. 2001. Upper Lolo Creek Analysis of Existing Culverts for Fish Passage. Lolo National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. Knotek, Ladd. 2003. Lolo Creek watershed tributaries, unpublished fisheries data. Montana De- partment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, Montana. Knotek, Ladd. 2005, various times. Personal communication. Montana Dept. of Fish, Wildlife and Parks Region 2 Fisheries Biologist. Missoula, Montana. Kramer, R.P., R. Swanson, Y. Vadeboncouer and K. Furrow. 1991. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment monitoring report, Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests, 1989 and 1990. Kramer, R.P., and K. Walker. 1992. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment monitoring report, Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests, 1991. Kramer, R.P., and K. Walker. 1993. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment monitoring report, Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests, 1992. Lolo National Forest. 2005. Files containing field survey notes and reports on tributary streams in the Lolo Creek watershed, 1990-1999. Lolo National Forest, Building 24, Ft. Mis- soula, Missoula, Montana. Missoula Office of Planning and Grants (MOPG). 2002. Lolo Regional Comprehensive Plan. Adopted by the Missoula County Commission April 24, 2002. Missoula, Montana. Moore, Bud. 2005. Personal communication. Former Lolo Creek resident. Condon, Montana. Muehlhausen, P., B. Riggers and R. Kramer. 1996. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment moni- toring report, Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests, 1994-1996.

Sources

- 43 -

Munther, Greg and J. Lilburn. 1987. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment monitoring report, Bitterroot, Deerlodge and Lolo National Forests, 1986. Riggers, Brian W., K. Furrow and R. Kramer. 1994. Fisheries habitat and aquatic environment monitoring report, Lolo and Deerlodge National Forests, 1993. Riggers, Brian W., A. Rosequist, R. Kramer and M. Bills. 1998. An Analysis of Fish Habitat and Population Conditions in Developed and Undeveloped Watersheds on the Lolo National Forest. Lolo National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana. Rosgen, David. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology. Pagosa Springs, Colo- rado. Stadler, Don. 2005. Personal communication. Lolo National Forest NEPA coordinator. Mis- soula, Montana. Steiner, Ron. 2005, various times. Personal communication. Fish and Wildlife Biologist, Plum Creek Timber Company. Missoula, Montana. Sullivan, Sean. 2003. Physical, Biological and Chemical Assessment of Lolo Creek, Montana. Report to the Missoula Water Quality District (MWQD). Missoula, Montana. Sylte, Tracy and B. Riggers. 1999. Upper Lolo Analysis Area - Ecosystem Analysis at the Watershed Scale. Lolo Na tional Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Missoula, Montana.

Vadeboncouer, Yvonne, S. Luchessa and R.P. Kramer. 1989. Fisheries habitat and aquatic envi- ronment monitoring report, Bitterroot, Deerlodge and Lolo National Forests, 1987-1988. Zelazny, John M. 2004. Lolo Creek Resource Assessment. Missoula, Montana.

Sources (continued)