East Deerlodge Valley

Landscape Restoration Management Project

PINTLER RANGER DISTRICT

BEAVERHEAD-DEERLODGE NATIONAL FOREST

POWELL and DEERLODGE COUNTIES, MONTANA

Prepared by: Jim Brammer

Aquatics Program Manager

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Signature: James A. Brammer

Date: January 20, 2015

1
Table of Contents

Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4

Project Description ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Project Area.............................................................................................................................................. 4

Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Purpose and Need................................................................................................................................. 6

Project Components ............................................................................................................................. 7

Project design features and mitigations.................................................................................................. 15

Air Quality.......................................................................................................................................... 15

Aquatics and Hydrology..................................................................................................................... 15

Livestock Grazing .............................................................................................................................. 15

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................. 15

Recreation and Travel Management................................................................................................... 15

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................................ 16

Soils Management .............................................................................................................................. 17

Vegetation .......................................................................................................................................... 18

Wildlife Habitat.................................................................................................................................. 18

Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................. 19

Interdependent Actions........................................................................................................................... 19

Interrelated Actions................................................................................................................................ 19

Project Schedule and Duration ............................................................................................................... 19

ESA Action Area Description .................................................................................................................... 19

Rationale for defining the ESA Action Area Boundary......................................................................... 22

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Log Haul Sedimentation................................................... 22

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Effects on Stream Temperature ........................................ 23

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Effects on stream flows. ................................................... 24

Species Ecology and Habitat Requirements............................................................................................... 25

Species Occurrence .................................................................................................................................... 26

Fish Sampling History and Pertinent Information ................................................................................. 27

Presence of Critical Habitat........................................................................................................................ 28

Environmental Baseline Description.......................................................................................................... 28

Clark Fork River - Deerlodge 5th Field Watershed -.............................................................................. 28

Clark Fork River – Warmsprings 5th Field Watershed –....................................................................... 28

2
Species Indicators:.............................................................................................................................. 29

Habitat Pathways:............................................................................................................................... 30

Habitat Conditions:............................................................................................................................. 37

Population Conditions:....................................................................................................................... 37

Analysis of Effects ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Changing the delivery of sediment to streams ....................................................................................... 38

Timber Harvest and vegetation management activities ..................................................................... 38

Log Hauling........................................................................................................................................ 38

Road Related Actions......................................................................................................................... 39

Altering Livestock Impacts: ............................................................................................................... 41

Off-site water developments .............................................................................................................. 41

Placement of LWD in streams............................................................................................................ 42

Changing Stream Temperatures............................................................................................................. 42

Altering Stream Flow ............................................................................................................................. 43

Matrix Checklist......................................................................................................................................... 44

Compliance with Forest Plan ..................................................................................................................... 47

Forest Plan Standards............................................................................................................................. 47

Determination of Effects to Species........................................................................................................... 48

Determination of Effects to Critical Habitat .............................................................................................. 49

Documentation of Expected Incidental Take ............................................................................................. 49

Summary .................................................................................................................................................... 49

References Cited......................................................................................................................................... 50

Maps........................................................................................................................................................... 54

3
Introduction

The following Biological Assessment (BA) is designed to satisfy the requirements of the Forest Service 

and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This BA consists of 14 parts:

1. Project Description

2. ESA Action Area Description

3. Species Occurrence and Habitat Requirements

4. Presence of Critical Habitat

5. Environmental Baseline Description

6. Analysis of Effects

7. Matrix Checklist

8. Compliance with Forest Plan

9. Determination of Effects to Species

10. Determination of Effects to Critical Habitat

11. Documentation of Expected Incidental Take

12. Summary

13. References Cited

14. Maps

Project Description

Project Area

The East Deerlodge Valley Land Restoration Management Project (EDLV) project area consists of approximately 39,651 

acres within the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest (BDNF). It is located east and southeast of the city of Deer Lodge in 

southwest Montana and includes portions of both Deer Lodge and Powell Counties (Figure 1). The management area is 

bounded by private and state-owned lands along the Deer Lodge Valley on the west and by the Boulder Mountains sloping up 

to the Continental Divide on the east. The Clark Fork River runs through the Deer Lodge Valley parallel to Interstate 90 (I-90). 

The project area encompasses the headwaters of streams that flow west-northwest to the Clark Fork River (Figure 2), 

including Girard Gulch, Perkins Gulch, Sand Creek, Dry Cottonwood Creek, Sand Hollow, Orofino Creek, Peterson Creek, 

Cottonwood Creek, Baggs Creek and tributaries to these streams. Portions of six sub-watersheds (drainage basins) that are 

within the Forest boundary are located within the project area. They are: 

 Clark Fork River – Caribou (170102010702) 

 Peterson Creek (17010201704)

 Cottonwood (170102010706)

 Warm Springs (170102010401)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404)

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407)

The area provides important habitat for westslope cutthroat trout and other native fish. Included in the project area is the Fred 

Fish Key Watershed. Fish Key Watersheds were selected to focus Federal funds and personnel for the purpose of restoring or 

maintaining viability of threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic species. The project area also includes the Girard Gulch 

subwatershed, a designated Restoration Key Watershed (Forest Plan, Appendix H). Restoration Key Watersheds were selected 

to focus Federal funds and personnel for the purpose of accelerating improvements in water quality and watershed conditions.

Figure 1. EDLV project area and vicinity map

4
Figure 1. Vicinity map for the East Deerlodge Valley 

5
Proposed Action

Purpose and Need

The purpose and need of the EDLV Project is to contribute to attainment of the following forest wide goals and objectives:

Aquatic Resources Goals and Objectives

• Restoration Key Watershed: Fish habitat, riparian habitat, and water quality are recovered to desired conditions 

developed through watershed assessments (Forest Plan, pg. 13).

• Fish Key Watershed: Populations of bull trout and westslope cutthroat trout exhibit numbers, life histories, age 

classes, recruitment levels, and reproductive characteristics representative of historic conditions (Forest Plan, pg. 13).

• Watershed Restoration Projects: Projects are designed and implemented to promote long-term ecological integrity of 

ecosystems, conserve the genetic integrity of native species, and contribute to attainment of desired stream function 

(Forest Plan, pg. 13).

• Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs): Management actions are consistent with TMDLs (Forest Plan, pg. 13).

• Roads: Close and stabilize or obliterate and stabilize roads not needed for future management activities (Forest Plan, 

pg. 17).

• Stream Channels: Stream channel attributes and processes are maintained and restored to sustain natural desired 

riparian, wetland, and aquatic habitats and keep sediment regimes as close as possible to those with which riparian 

and aquatic ecosystems developed (Forest Plan, pg. 13). 

• Riparian Areas: Riparian habitat, species composition, and structural diversity of native and desired non-native 

riparian plant communities are maintained or restored to (Forest Plan, pg. 14):

• Provide an amount and distribution of woody debris characteristic of functioning aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

• Provide adequate summer and winter thermal regulation to support beneficial uses;

• Provide bank stability to maintain rates of surface erosion, bank erosion, and channel migration which are 

characteristic of functioning aquatic and riparian ecosystems;

• Effectively trap and store sediment, build stream banks and floodplains, and promote recovery after watershed 

disturbance.

• Sensitive Aquatic Species: Viable populations of sensitive aquatic species are maintained (R1 Sensitive Species list) 

by managing habitat (Forest Plan, pg. 14).

Timber Management Goals

• Manage lands suitable for timber production for the growth and yield of sawtimber, crop trees, pulpwood, and other 

forest products, including salvage harvest (Forest Plan, pg. 38).

• Manage lands where timber harvest is allowed to protect other resource values (Forest Plan, pg. 38).

• Product Utilization: Forest products would be used to provide economic benefits where project objectives, Forest 

Plan objectives, and Forest Plan standards can be met (Forest Plan, pg. 38).

Vegetation Goals and Objectives

• Reduce stand densities in the large size classes of dry forest communities and some lodgepole pine communities to 

maintain or improve resilient forest conditions (Forest Plan, pg. 43).

• Increase the number of acres of lodgepole pine in the 0-5” diameter-at-breast-height (dbh) class by approximately 

74,000 acres, where burned or insect infested stands are dead or dying (Forest Plan, pg. 44).

• Increase the aspen component within lodgepole pine and other vegetation types on 67,000 acres (Forest Plan, pg. 44).

• Reduce conifer encroachment on 74,000 acres of riparian areas, shrublands, and grasslands (Forest Plan, pg. 44).

Wildlife Habitat Goals

• Manage density of open motorized roads and trails by landscape year-round, except fall rifle big game season, to 

achieve levels at or below 1.9 mi/mi2 for the Clark Fork - Flints Landscape (Forest Plan, Table 13, pg. 45)

• Manage open motorized road and trail density by MTFWP hunting units during the fall rifle big game season to 

6
achieve levels at or below 1.5 mi/mi2 for Hunting Unit 215 (Forest Plan, Table 14, pg. 46).

Project Components

Proposed activities include timber salvage, commercial thinning, and restoration projects to improve vegetation and watershed 

characteristics. Please see maps in Appendix B for spatial context of treatments relative to the different subwatersheds in the 

action area.

Treatments in Timber Units

Conduct commercial salvage or commercial thinning within approximately 2,705 acres in 57 timber units.:

1. Commercial salvage of lodgepole pine from 4-15 inches dbh in 43 units totaling 2,038 acres.

2. Commercial thinning of Douglas-fir from 4-15 inches dbh and commercial salvage of lodgepole pine from 4 -15 

inches dbh in 6 units totaling 340 acres.

3. Commercial thinning of Douglas-fir from 4-15 inches dbh in 3 units totaling 162 acres.

Timber units would be harvested in the winter when ground is frozen: 5T, 11T, 17T, 19T, 23T, 25T, 29T, 37T, 41T, 42T, 45T, 

48T, 52T, 53T, 76T, 80T, 82T.

Treatments in Restoration Units

Under Alternative 3, 19 restoration units totaling 8,768 acres have been identified for proposed treatments. The following 

treatments would occur:

1. Cut Encroaching Conifers in Parks/Meadows: Conifer encroachment treatments would be implemented in all restoration 

units:

• Within parks or within 11⁄2 tree lengths of parks/meadow edges, conifers up to 12 inches dbh would be cut unless 

they had old growth characteristics or desirable characteristics associated with wildlife values (e.g., snags).

• Cut materials would be left in place until removed or jackpot burned. After jackpot burning, areas will be 

monitored for weeds and treated as needed.

• Alternative 3 would allow recovery of merchantable trees from restoration units only within 150 feet of existing 

access roads; skid trails would be used however construction of new or temporary roads would be prohibited in 

these units.

2. Cut Encroaching Conifers in Aspen: Alternative 3 would include the retention and protection of aspen on the landscape. 

Along park/conifer boundaries (ecotones), draws, and isolated aspen stands within open parks, aspen enhancement 

treatments would be implemented where decadent, declining, or remnant aspen clones occur:

• Cut and leave (jackstraw) conifers up to 15 inches dbh growing in or within 11⁄2 tree lengths of aspen clones.

3. Thin Douglas-fir: Non-commercial thinning treatments would be implemented in Douglas-fir dominated stands in all 

restoration units:

• Conifers less than 7 inches dbh located within 1 tree length of larger Douglas-fir would be felled.

• Trees slashed would be jackpot burned.

• Alternative 3 would allow recovery of merchantable trees from restoration units only within 150 feet of existing 

access roads; skid trails would be used however construction of new or temporary roads would be prohibited in 

these units.

4. Enhance Riparian Habitat: Livestock impediments and barriers would be accomplished using the following treatments in 

riparian areas:

• Worm fencing where practicable using nearby, smaller diameter lodgepole pine.

• Dead lodgepole pine “tree felling”.

5. Develop Water Structures: Seven water structures would be developed to reduce riparian impacts from livestock. 

Developed water structures would include a tank structure with water supplied via pipeline from a nearby creek or spring 

source. A collection device, such as a perforated pipe installed within the creek or a headbox installed next to the creek or 

in the spring, would be used to collect water. A valve to control water flow to the tank. Overflow water from the tank 

would be diverted via buried pipeline to an adjacent drainage or back to the creek downstream from the water intake. 

Water to the tanks would be gravity fed. Installation of the off-site water features would be performed under a cooperative 

agreement with the permit holder for the allotment. The water source would be protected (e.g., fence) if necessary. They 

include:

• Off stream development; North Fork Dry Cottonwood in Dry Cottonwood allotment, adjacent to restoration unit 10.

7
• Off stream development; Tributary to Orofino Creek Dry Cottonwood allotment, in restoration unit 14.

• Spring development; Lockhart-Whitehouse allotment, in restoration unit 15.

• Off stream development; Dieders Fork in Lockhart-Whitehouse allotment, in restoration unit 15.

• Spring development; South Cottonwood allotment, between restoration unit 33 and timber unit 45.

• Pipeline extension in South Cottonwood allotment, in restoration unit 33.

• Off stream development; Perkins Gulch in Dry Cottonwood allotment, in restoration unit 7.

Additional Resource Improvements and Restoration Actions

Other resource improvement and restoration actions have been identified throughout the project area, but not within specific 

timber or restoration units. These are primarily related to aquatic/riparian habitat improvements and restoration activities 

related to roads and trails.

Aquatic/Riparian Habitat Improvements

The following aquatic/riparian habitat treatments would be accomplished to reduce fish passage barriers and to improve 

riparian habitat as listed in Tables 1 and 2 and described below:

1. Remove, replace, or retrofit 12 culverts in the project area that have the potential to prevent upstream fish passage 

(Table 1). The replacement structures would be bottomless arches, bridges, or culverts installed at or below grade to 

allow the passage of all life stages of fish based on Forest Service Region 1 and USFWS fish passage criteria and 

would allow the passage of bedload material and accumulation of natural substrate within the structure. Prioritization 

is based on compliance with Forest Plan direction and the Clean Water Act and direct emphasis on; 1) Fish Key 

Watersheds, 2) TMDL listed streams, 3) Restoration Key Watersheds, and 4) other watersheds supporting westslope 

cutthroat trout conservation populations.

Table 1. Stream crossing improvements.

Subwatershed Forest Road Creek Name Treatment Priority

Accomplished 

before completion of 

timber harvest 

activities.

Cottonwood 

Creek - Fred 

(Fish Key)

FR1504 NF Cottonwood Replace 1 Yes

FR 1518 MF Cottonwood Replace 12

Peterson

(TMDL)a

FR19870 Jack Remove 4 Yes

FR8518 Dieders Fork Replace 7 Yes

FR8518 Dieders Fork Replace 6 Yes

FR 1504 Peterson Retrofit inlet/outlet 5 Yes

Dry 

Cottonwood

FR78256 NF Dry 

Cottonwood Replace 9

FR85 NF Dry 

Cottonwood Replace 8

FR85 SF Dry 

Cottonwood Replace 10

FR8634 SF Dry 

Cottonwood Replace 11

Warm Springs 

- Girard Gulch 

(Restoration 

Key)

FR5165 NF Perkins Gulch Replace 2 Yes

FR5165 Perkins Gulch Replace

3

Yesb

a. A “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) has been established for a water body in this subwatershed to control non-point source pollutants, per 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; see Hydrology section.

b. The culvert on main Perkins Gulch, FR 5165, must be replaced prior to any haul activity.

2. Implement erosion control practices to reduce sediment delivery to North Fork Cottonwood Creek (FR 9330 near 

milepost 0.8) and North Fork Perkins Gulch (FR 5163).

3. Hand fell available conifers to create barriers and reduce livestock accessibility and riparian and stream bank impacts

8
along a 1-mile section of North Fork Cottonwood Creek in the Fred Fish Key Watershed .

4. Use dead and dying lodgepole pine to enhance in-stream LWD in 1.9 miles of Baggs Creek between river miles 3.1 

and 5.0 in the Fred Fish Key Watershed.Trees that would naturally recruit to Baggs Creek would not be felled. 

Additional trees would be brought from upland sites to meet riparian management objectives (RMOs) for LWD 

contained in the 2009 Forest Plan. Since access to this site is via non-motorized Trail #8139, movement and 

positioning of trees into the stream would be accomplished using low impact methods, such as draft horses, chainsaw 

winches or other means that limit ground disturbance.

5. In the Fred Fish Key Watershed, use dead and dying lodgepole pine to enhance in-stream LWD along 1.5 miles of 

Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek between the confluence with North Fork Cottonwood Creek and river mile 1.5, 

where an unnamed tributary flows into Middle Fork Cottonwood Creek. The trees in riparian conservation areas 

(RCA) that would recruit naturally would be used for the enhancement work to prevent them from being harvested 

for firewood, as currently occurs due to proximity of FR 1504. Additional trees from upland sites would be used to 

meet Forest Plan LWD objectives. Low impact methods would be used such as draft horses, chainsaw winches or 

other means that limit ground disturbance.

6. Implement riparian habitat treatments (tree felling, LWD enhancement, log worm fencing) in other subwatersheds as 

described in Table 2. Prioritization is based on compliance with Forest Plan direction and the Clean Water Act, with

emphasis on; 1) Fish Key Watersheds, 2) TMDL listed streams, 3) Restoration Key Watersheds, and 4) other 

watersheds supporting westslope cutthroat trout conservation populations.

Table 2. Aquatic and riparian restoration activities

Sub-watershed Stream

Stream 

Length 

(mi)

Riparian 

Area 

(acres)

Treatment Restoration 

Unit

Accomplished 

before completion 

of timber harvest 

activities

Cottonwood 

Creek -Fred 

(Fish Key)

NF Cottonwood 1 18 Tree felling n/a Yes

Baggs 1.9 n/a Large wood 

enhancement n/a Yes

MF 

Cottonwood 1.5 n/a Large wood enhancement n/a Yes

Peterson

(TMDL)a

Dieders Fork 0.3 9 Log worm 

fence 15 Yes

Dieders Fork 0.5 16 Tree felling 15 Yes

Clark Fork River 

- Caribou

Orofino 0.6 10 Tree felling n/a --

Unnamed 

tributary to 

Orofino

0.6 10 Tree felling 14 --

Dry Cottonwood

NF Dry 

Cottonwood 1.6 34 Tree felling n/a --

NF Dry 

Cottonwood 0.2 17 Log worm fence 10 --

Unnamed 

tributary to SF 

Dry 

Cottonwood

0.2 5 Tree felling 2 --

Warm Springs -

Girard Gulch 

(Restoration 

Key)

NF Perkins 

Gulch 0.1 4 Log worm fence 7 Yes

Perkins Gulch 0.4 11 Tree felling 7 Yes

Total -- 8.9 134 -- -- --

a. A “Total Maximum Daily Load” (TMDL) has been established for a water body in this subwatershed to control non-point source pollutants, per 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act; see Hydrology section.

Road Related Restoration Actions

A number of restoration activities related to roads and trails would occur as part of Alternative 3 to improve wildlife and/or 

9
aquatic resources. Specific route-by-route actions are listed in table 13 below. Actions would include:

• Adding 1.2 miles of non-system roads to the Forest transportation system. These additions generally would occur 

where non-system roads used by the public are not currently impairing resources.

• Closing and/or decommissioning of 21.9 miles of system and non-system roads and trails. Actions would occur on 

roads and trails for the purpose of enhancing wildlife security or aquatic resources. Actions on road and trail 

segments within RCAs would ensure removal of hydrologic connectivity with the associated water body through 

installation of water bars, drain dips, or other mechanisms to eliminate sediment delivery to streams from road prism 

and ditch lines.

Alternative 3 would include the same work on the Baggs Creek Trail #8139 that is proposed in Alternative 2. Specifically, the

actions on approximately 6.5 miles of Trail #8139 include:

• Conversion of the first 3.7 miles from motorized to non-motorized use starting at the end of FR 19744 and ending at 

the point where the trail begins its current non-motorized status to create a total of approximately 6.5 miles of nonmotorized trail. In addition, maintenance and spot reconstruction would occur throughout the 6.5 miles of trail 

#8139, including installation of features to improve wet area crossings, reduce erosion, and re-establish a sustainable 

tread. 

Additional trail work includes:

• Maintenance and reconstruction on the entire 2.7 mile length of the Airplane Park Trail #8047. In certain areas the 

old trail is largely non-existent and in others the trail has been impacted by FR 5182.

• Conversion of 0.6 miles of Trail #8442 from motorized to non-motorized through a sign closure.

Table 3. Alternative 3 restoration activities related to roads and trails

Route ID Action Haul 

Route Rationale Miles

Accomplish 

before 

completion 

of timber 

harvest 

activities

19727 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1

Removes road from winter 

range and summer wildlife 

secure area.

0.3 --

19727

Close system road 

year long, allow 

admin use

No

Removes road from winter 

range and summer wildlife 

secure area. 

0.6 --

19727

Close system road 

year long, allow 

admin use

Yes

Removes road from winter 

range and summer wildlife 

secure area.

0.4 --

19870

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate); ensure no 

hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a 

watershed that contains a Total 

Maximum Daily Load stream. 

0.2 (.17 miles 

in RCA of 

Jack Creek)

Yes

19885

Decommission 

system road (sign 

close)

No Segment is already closed. 0.3 --

5163

Close system road, 

convert to ML 1; 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a Key 

Watershed. Removes road from 

winter range. 

1.1 (1.1 miles 

in RCA of NF 

Perkins 

Creek)

Yes

5171

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate)

Yes

Reduces impacts to stream. 

Removes road from winter 

range. 

0.5 --

78070

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate)

Yes Segment is grown-in. 1.0 --

10
Route ID Action Haul 

Route Rationale Miles

Accomplish 

before 

completion 

of timber 

harvest 

activities

78167

Close system road, 

convert to ML 1; 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area and winter 

range.

0.9 (.15 miles 

in RCA of 

Orofino 

Creek)

--

78244 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Removes road from summer wildlife secure area. 0.5 --

78244 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 Yes Removes road from summer wildlife secure area. 0.3 --

78253

Close system road, 

convert to ML 1; 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area and removes road from winter range and 

summer wildlife secure area. 

Segment is not drivable. 

1.2 (.5 miles 

in RCA of 

Un-named 

Trib to Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

--

78254 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Removes road from winter range. Segment is not drivable. 0.4 --

78258

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate); ensure no 

hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area.

Removes road from summer 

wildlife secure area. 

0.4 (0.4 miles 

in RCA of 

Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek and an 

Unnamed 

Trib

--

78319 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Removes road from winter range. 

0.3 --

78319 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 Yes Removes road from winter range. 

1.3 --

78321 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Reduces impacts to stream.

0.3 (0.1 mile 

in RCA of 

Un-named 

Trib to Dry 

Cottowood 

Creek

--

8139

Convert motorized 

system trail to non-

motorized system 

trail

No Reduces impacts to stream and 

maintains wildlife secure area.

3.7 (3.2 miles 

in RCA of 

Baggs Creek

--

8139

Maintain and 

reconstruct non-

motorized trail 

No

Reduces impacts to stream and 

reestablishes connection 

between the Baggs Creek trail 

and Airplane Park trail.

2.7 --

8047

Maintain and 

reconstruct non-

motorized trail

No

Reduces impacts to stream and 

reestablishes connection 

between the Baggs Creek trail 

and Cliff Mountain trail.

2.7 --

8442

Convert motorized 

system trail to non-

motorized system 

No

Reduces impacts in Fish Key 

Watershed and maintains 

wildlife secure area.

0.6 --

11
Route ID Action Haul 

Route Rationale Miles

Accomplish 

before 

completion 

of timber 

harvest 

activities

trail

9316

Decommission 

system road (sign 

close)

No Reduces impacts to watershed. 0.7 --

9320 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 Yes Segment not drivable. 0.7 --

9322

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate); ensure no 

hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area. 

0.1 (0.1 miles 

in RCA of 

unnamed Trib 

to Orofino 

Creek)

--

9326 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Reduces impacts to watershed. 0.4 --

9330

Convert system road 

to non-motorized 

system trail - allow 

motorized admin use; 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a Key 

Watershed and removes road 

from winter range.

0.2 (0.2 miles 

in RCA of NF 

Cottonwood 

Creek)

Yes

9330

Close system road, 

allow motorized 

admin use; ensure no 

hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a Key 

Watershed and removes road 

from winter range. 

0.4 (0.4 miles 

in RCA of NF 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Yes

9331

Decommission 

system road 

(obliterate); ensure no 

hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

Yes

Removes road from a Key 

Watershed. Segment not 

drivable. 

0.5 (0.5 miles 

in RCA of 

Middle Fork 

of 

Cottonwood 

Creek

--

9332 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No

Removes road from summer 

wildlife secure area. Segment is 

not drivable.

0.03 --

9332 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 Yes

Removes road from summer 

wildlife secure area. Segment is 

not drivable.

0.8 --

9363 Close system road, 

convert to ML 1 No Removes road from wildlife secure area. 

0.4 --

Temp New

Construct temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes NA (since temporary road) 9.0 Yes

Temp UR8-

120

Use existing UR 

route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes Eliminates unneeded nonsystem route. 0.7 Yes

Temp UR8- Use existing UR Yes Eliminates unneeded non- 0.2 Yes

12
Route ID Action Haul 

Route Rationale Miles

Accomplish 

before 

completion 

of timber 

harvest 

activities

16 route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

system route.

Temp UR8-

31

Use existing UR 

route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes Eliminates unneeded non

-

system route. 0.1 Yes

Temp UR8-

35

Use existing UR 

route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes Eliminates unneeded non

-

system route. 0.4 Yes

Temp UR8-

66

Use existing UR 

route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes Eliminates unneeded non

-

system route. 0.7 Yes

Temp UR8-

81

Use existing UR 

route as temporary 

road, obliterate 

following haul

Yes Eliminates unneeded non

-

system route. 0.2 Yes

UR8-1

Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a Key 

Watershed and removes road 

from winter range. 

0.4 (0.4 miles 

in RCA of 

Baggs Creek

Yes

UR8-11 Decommission UR 

road (sign close) No Removes road from winter range. 

0.5 --

UR8-12 Decommission UR 

road (sign close) No

Removes inaccessible road 

segment due to closure of UR8-

11.

0.1 --

UR8-126

Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area and removes 

road from summer wildlife 

secure area. No legal access. 

0.4 (0.4 miles 

in RCA of SF 

Dry 

Cottowood 

Creek

--

UR8-130 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate) No Removes road from winter range. Segment not drivable. 0.2 --

UR8-131

Decommission 

system road (sign 

close)

No Segment not drivable. 0.6 --

UR8-24 Decommission UR 

road (sign close) No

Removes road from summer 

wildlife secure area. No legal 

access to road.

1.0 --

UR8-25

Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a Key 

Watershed. 

1.0 (0.4 miles 

in RCA of 

Cottonwood 

Creek)

Yes

UR8-49 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); No Removes road from a Riparian Conservation Area and removes 

0.5 (0.5 miles 

in RCA of Yes

13
Route ID Action Haul 

Route Rationale Miles

Accomplish 

before 

completion 

of timber 

harvest 

activities

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

road from winter range and 

summer wildlife secure area. 

Spring Creek

UR8-63

Add UR route to 

system as ML2 Road 

closed to motorized 

use from October 15 

to June 15.

Yes Accesses livestock water 

developments. 0.2 --

UR8-66 Decommission UR 

road (sign close) No Removes road from winter range.

0.1 --

UR8-72 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate) No No legal access to road. 0.6 --

UR8-75

Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No

Removes road from a Riparian 

Conservation Area within a 

watershed that contains a Total 

Maximum Daily Load stream. 

0.4 (0.37 

miles in RCA 

of Peterson 

Creek)

Yes

UR8-83

Add UR route to 

system as ML2 Road 

closed to motorized 

use from October 15 

to December 2.

Yes Provides access to private 

inholding. 1.0 --

UR8-85

Decommission UR 

road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic 

connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

No Reduces impacts to stream.

0.3 (0.2 miles 

in RCA of 

unnamed Trib 

to Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek)

--

UR8-92 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate) No Removes road from summer wildlife secure area. 0.5 --

UR8-97 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate) No

Removes road from winter 

range and fall wildlife secure 

area.

1.1 --

UR8-99 Decommission UR 

road (obliterate) No Removes road from winter range.

0.1 --

UT05N08W

07-02

Close motorized use 

on UT trail No Reduces impacts to stream. 

0.2 (0.2 miles 

in RCA of 

Unnamed 

Trib to SF 

Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

--

UT06N08W

28-03

Decommission UT 

trail (obliterate) No Removes trail from a Riparian Conservation Area. 0.1 --

UT06N08W

31-01

Decommission UT 

trail (obliterate) No Removes trail from a Riparian Conservation Area. 0.3 --

14
Project design features and mitigations

Under Alternative 3, project design features prescribe measures that would reduce or eliminate potential adverse effects of the 

alternative, or are mitigations to offset unavoidable impacts. These measures would be non-discretionary if approved in a 

decision.

Air Quality

All prescribed burning (jackpot pile burning) would be in coordination with the Montana/Idaho Airshed Group smoke 

management program and would comply with the requirements of the State Implementation Plan and the Smoke Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1987, pgs. II-26). Prescribed burning is reported to the Airshed Coordinator on a daily basis. If 

ventilation problems are forecast by the monitoring unit, prescribed burning is either restricted by elevation or curtailed until 

good ventilation exists.

Aquatics and Hydrology

Maintenance or reconstruction will occur prior to and following haul for haul routes. All road work would comply with BMPs 

defined by Logan (2001).

All actions identified in tables 1, 2, and 3 in the Fred, Girard, and Peterson subwatersheds are required to be completed during 

implementation of timber sale activities (including log hauling) by watershed.

Harvest units and timber operations would avoid RCAs (Forest Plan, pg. 300) and seasonally wet areas. Aquatic resource 

specialist(s) will work with the project implementation team to delineate RCAs prior to implementation.

Project related storage of fuels and toxicants within RCAs is prohibited. Refueling within RCAs is prohibited except for 

emergency situations, in which case refueling sites must have an approved spill containment plan (Forest Plan, pg. 21).

Project activities would avoid known western toad breeding sites and natal areas during breeding and juvenile rearing periods. 

Aquatic resource specialist(s) will work with the project implementation team to identify these areas for avoidance.

New, permanent road stream crossings would have an appropriate, minimum size culvert. Temporary road culverts would be 

removed immediately after harvest and log haul operations have been completed within that watershed.

Livestock Grazing

Protect existing fences and water developments from damage during project implementation.

Construct fences as necessary to replace natural barriers breached during project implementation.

Cultural Resources

Heritage sites will be avoided and/or mitigation measures will be developed in consultation with the Montana State Historic 

Preservation Office prior to project implementation.

If additional previously undiscovered cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, work would stop in that 

area immediately until a Forest heritage resource specialist can evaluate the site.

Any areas not previously surveyed for cultural resources, such as areas planned for road obliteration work and trail work, will 

require an archaeological survey.

Recreation and Travel Management

Dust abatement would occur, as needed, along roads within and adjacent to the Orofino Campground and Picnic Area while 

harvest and hauling activities occur in and adjacent to these sites.

No log hauling would occur on NFS roads on weekends and Federal holidays to provide for public safety.

15
Travel restrictions identified on the map titled Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest North Map reflecting the BeaverheadDeerlodge Forest Plan Record of Decision II Travel Route Restrictions would be imposed, except on the following routes as 

needed to haul during winter harvest: 705, 1518, 5169, 5170, 5171, 5175, 8518, 9317, 9320, 9455, 19729, 19731, 19732, 

19733, 19735, 19736, 19738, 19869, 78319, 9491A, 9491B, UR8-35, UR8-63, UR8-66, UR8-120.

Trail, trailheads and other recreation facilities impacted by harvest activities would be protected or re-established following 

harvest.

Signs and gates damaged or removed during harvest activities will be replaced and/or reinstalled.

Scenic Resources

Visible stumps within 100 feet of the CDNST, FR 82, and Orofino Campground shall be cut as low as possible (maximum 6 

inches).

In treatment units visible in the foreground from the CDNST, FR 82, and Orofino Campground, slash and felled conifers 

would be burned to 95% consumption as soon as possible following treatment activities. This may require re-piling and 

burning. The remaining material would be scattered.

Unit form and shape would simulate natural patterns in design and operations, especially in the elements of form and line. 

Meander unit boundaries; avoid obvious human-created boundaries in layout and design of units. Unit design and layout 

should tie into meadows and other openings in the surrounding area, where feasible.

Locate roads, landings, slash piles, and other features out of sight of Concern Level 1 and 2 viewing platforms, utilizing 

vegetation and topography for screening, as feasible.

When slashing conifers within restoration units, fall larger diameter trees so that cut stems are not facing adjacent viewing

platforms, if feasible. Cut stumps as low as possible in the foreground of CL 1 and 2 routes and sites.

Cuts and fills associated with temporary road construction would be minimized and roads and landings would be located to 

minimize visible cuts and fill, and to take advantage of natural screening elements such as topography and vegetation as seen 

from the identified CL 1 and 2 routes and sites.

In units 24T, 25T, 40T, 41T, 80T, and 82T any road work, including maintenance, on roads proposed to be used for harvest 

operations, should be minimized to that which is necessary to use the road. Minimize cuts and fills on these roads. Retain any 

trees, preferably in natural appearing patterns (such as groups or clumps) that will provide screening of these roads as seen

from the CL 1 and 2 routes and sites in the area.

In thinning activities, vary leave tree spacing and retain groups or clumps of trees where feasible.

In thinning activities, soften edges of the unit adjacent to denser forest so that the percent of thinning within the transition zone 

will be progressively reduced toward the outside edge of the unit. Vary the width of the transition zone. 

In thinning activities, soften edges of the unit adjacent to natural or created openings so that the percent of thinning within the 

transition zone will be progressively increased toward the outside edge of the unit. Vary the width of the transition zone.

Severe thinning along ridgelines in units 25T, 40T, 56T, 57T, 78T, 80T, and 82T should be avoided. The Forest landscape 

architect shall be consulted regarding treatment units in these situations.

Where feasible, small, low-branched trees would be retained within 50 feet of edges of units to avoid a bole-edge effect.

The visible boundaries of units 21T, 25T, 57T, and 61T would be blended as much as possible with adjacent undisturbed areas 

or moved if necessary to minimize visible impacts. Natural contours would be followed and edges would be tied into existing 

meadows and openings where possible. Avoid straight lines and sharp corners during layout of unit 25T. Layout and design of 

these units would be coordinated with the Forest landscape architect.

The visible boundaries of units 21T, 22T, 24T, 25T, 40T, 41T, 42T, and 61T would be blended as much as possible with the 

power line corridor to reduce the existing contrast. Unit edges would be feathered and undulated and tied into existing 

16
meadows and openings where possible. Layout and design would be coordinated with the Forest landscape architect to ensure 

that the existing contrast created by the power line would be softened.

In unit 38T, avoid creating unnatural appearing unit boundaries in the upper portion of the unit. Meander this boundary.

In unit 26T, retain adequate leave trees to screen the effects of the temporary road construction as seen from the CDNST.

Water developments would use non-reflective, earth-tone color materials in construction and installation. Darker earth-tone 

fiberglass tanks are recommended.

Where feasible, retain Douglas-fir in unit 21T to screen the effects of the temporary road construction in this unit.

Avoid leaving a strip of trees on the north side of unit 20T between the edge of the unit and the forest boundary.

Soils Management

Non-merchantable and sub-merchantable material, such as cull logs and tree limbs, within harvest units would be piled and 

burned so that the remaining coarse woody debris (3 inches or greater in diameter) shall be in the range of 7-12 tons/acre in 

each timber unit. This may be accomplished by felling and leaving trees where necessary or returning slash from the landing 

that results from whole-tree logging (USDA Forest Service 1999).

Skid trails would be spaced an average of 75 to 100 feet (SWCP 14.08). Temporary roads and skid trails would be adequately 

drained in order to prevent overland water flow. Slash would be placed on skid trails to prevent erosion and to discourage 

ATV use (SWCP 14.15).

All temporary roads would be ripped or subsoiled, seeded with native seed, and blocked at the entrance. Temporary roads 

would be recontoured where necessary.

Disturbed areas will be monitored to ensure soil stabilization occurs through natural revegetation from the soil seed bank. If 

additional plant seed is required, areas of compacted soil will be scarified prior to seeding and only native species common to 

the site will be used. All seed and mulch material will be certified noxious weed seed free.

Ground based yarding would not occur on slopes exceeding 35% without a site specific environmental analysis by a soil 

scientist determining that damage is unlikely (Forest Plan, pg. 34; SWCP 14.07).

Harvest would not occur unless soils are dry or frozen as determined by the Forest Service in order to minimize potential 

compaction and/or rutting (SWCP 13.06).

The following timber units would be harvested in the winter when ground is frozen: 5T, 6T, 11T, 14T, 17T, 19T, 23T, 25T, 

29T, 37T, 41T, 42T, 45T, 48T, 52T, 53T, 76T, 80T, 82T.

Timber operations and harvest units would avoid wet areas. The Forest soil scientist, hydrologist, and fisheries biologist would 

work with the project implementation team to protect these areas (SWCP 13.03).

Slash would be piled and burned on roads where feasible. Where this is not feasible, slash would be piled in such a way (tall

and narrow) as to reduce the footprint on the soil and piles would be burned when the soil is cold/frozen and moist.

Sub soiling and/or ripping would occur within units 6T and 14T and 37T in order to restore portions of the units to ensure 

compliance with soil quality standards.

In restoration units 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 do not remove conifers in eroded draws/gullies, and above and below slope 

breaks around the flat benches, where soil loss from erosion limits the potential for adequate plant cover.

In restoration units where feasible, existing roads will be used as main skid trails with only short tributary skid trails within the 

harvest units.

In restoration units equipment that uses the same trail to enter and exit a unit will do so without turning around to avoid 

excessive soils disturbance associated with turning.

In restoration units rubber-tired skidders will be used for skidding logs unless otherwise agreed to by the Forest Service.

17
Vegetation

No cutting or treatments would occur in old growth stands.

Design criteria for harvest activities have been developed to provide protection to the whitebark pine seedlings and saplings

that occur in units 25T and 40T, and are also developed to account for whitebark pine regeneration that may occur in other 

units that field examinations may have missed. The design criteria to protect whitebark pine are: (1) retaining all whitebark

pine of 3” dbh or greater through avoidance; (2) designate skid trails that avoid whitebark pine to the extent possible; and (3) 

directionally fell trees to be harvested to avoid damaging whitebark regeneration to the extent possible; and (4) if whitebark 

pine is found in restoration units, individuals will be protected during implementation activities to the extent possible. This 

will be done by directionally felling trees and concentrating fuels away from whitebark pine and locating jackpot burn piles a 

safe distance that ensures no potential for scorching shall occur.

If undocumented populations of sensitive plants are discovered during project implementation, work would immediately stop 

in that area until a Forest botanist or ecologist could evaluate the site. 

Landings would not be located in natural openings such as grass-shrub parks to reduce impacts to the vegetation types in those 

areas.

Noxious weeds would be controlled following the procedures in the BDNF Noxious Weed Control Program ROD including 

all mitigation measures, monitoring requirements, and applicable BMPs (USDA 2002).

Noxious weeds within units and along roads used to access treatment units containing parks would be aggressively treated. 

Parks include meadows, grasslands, sagebrush steppe communities and other open areas where trees do not dominate the 

vegetation. Treatments would be conducted at the appropriate time of year (before flower and seed set).

All heavy equipment would have an undercarriage wash and be inspected prior to entering NFS lands to reduce the spread of 

noxious weeds.

Ground-disturbing activities associated with the project should be limited to the extent practical. Noxious weeds would be 

monitored and treated as necessary reduce the potential spreading of weeds into new areas.

Post activity monitoring for, and treatment of noxious weeds would occur on all proposed harvest units. A specific emphasis 

would be given to areas of ground disturbance within the units, and to units with existing infestations where monitoring and 

treatment would occur until populations are effectively controlled.

Cheatgrass (Bromus Tectorum) will not be intentionally spread during project implementation. This will be accomplished by 

applying all preventative Best Management Practices identified above for noxious weeds.

Wildlife Habitat

To meet the Forest Plan snag standards, all trees (live or dead) over 15 inches dbh would be retained in the mechanical 

vegetation treatment units (salvage and commercial thin DF units), as well as non-commercial treatments. Trees greater than 

15 inches dbh may be cut if they are determined to be a hazard by the purchaser or operator. If a tree is cut due to hazard 

determination, tree would not be removed.

Leave at least 0.9 live trees/acre > 10 inches dbh in salvage units for future snag recruitment.

Large woody debris, at least six pieces per acre with small end diameter equal to or greater than 8.0 inches and at least 10 feet 

long, would be retained in salvage harvest units.

There have been potential, but unconfirmed sighting of goshawks in the vicinity of unit 20T. This unit would be surveyed 

prior to logging operations if logging and hauling occurs during the breeding season (March 1 – August 15).

If there is an active nest in 20T, appropriate mitigation would be applied (the 2009 Northern Region Northern Goshawk 

Overview reviewed timing restrictions). For northern goshawks, a 40-acre nest buffer would apply over the 4/15-8/15 breeding 

season limited operating period. For great gray owls, a 30-acre nest buffer would apply over the 3/15-7/17 breeding season 

limited operating period.

18
If active nest sites for other threatened, endangered or sensitive raptors (including northern goshawks and great gray owls) are 

found, effects of management actions would be mitigated based on species needs and site-specific considerations.

Temporary roads would be closed to the public during project implementation through a forest order and signing. Upon 

completion of harvest operations, all temporary roads would be obliterated. Temporary roads would not remain open for postharvest treatments including: reforestation exams and pile burning.

Retain existing large diameter logs in various stages of decay in all treatment units where possible. Methods include placement 

of slash away from down logs to prevent burning and avoiding with equipment to prevent demolishing.

Monitoring

Temporary road construction and subsequent decommissioning by obliteration would be monitored to ensure project design 

features are adequate and in compliance with Soil and Water Conservation Practices (USDA Forest Service 1988).

Post activity monitoring of worm fencing, riparian tree felling, and off-site water developments: monitor proposed riparian 

improvement projects for effectiveness in reducing livestock impacts in riparian areas.

Units 6T, 14T, 17T, 28T, and 37T will be monitored, at a minimum, to ensure SQS are met. Monitoring will follow the Forest 

Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009a).

Interdependent Actions

Interdependent actions are actions that have “no independent utility apart from the action under consideration” (50 

CFR§402.02). There are no future actions or activities that rely solely on this project being completed. 

Interrelated Actions

Interrelated actions are actions that “are part of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification” (50 

CFR§402.02). The Forest has not identified any interrelated actions associated with the proposed action (see above rationale in 

Section 2.4).

Project Schedule and Duration

The expected duration of this project for implementation of action items is expected to be no more than 10 years from 

commencement of activities.

ESA Action Area Description

The ESA Action Area is defined as “all areas to be affected directly or indirectly by the Federal action and not merely the 

immediate area involved in the action” (50 CFR§402.02). In other words, this is the area where the action and any 

interdependent and interrelated actions will result in direct or indirect effects to listed species or designated critical habitat. 

The EDLV Project Action Area is commensurate with the Aquatic Analysis Area in the EDLV Project FEIS and is depicted 

below in Figure 2.

The action area is situated within two 5th code HUC watersheds (USGS watershed numbers 1701020104 and 1701020107) 

and is defined as the portions of six sub-watersheds containing the project area, plus those portions of the same sub-watersheds 

which extend down to –but do not include – the Clark Fork River. The six sub-watersheds are listed below:

 Cottonwood (170102010706)

 Peterson Creek (17010201704)

 Clark Fork River - Caribou (170102010702)

 Warm Springs (170102010401)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404)

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407)

19
!.

Dry Cottonwood Creek

Warm Springs

("Girard Gulch" Restoration Key Watershed)

Clark Fork River-Sand

Hollow

Clark Fork River-Caribou Creek

Peterson

Creek

Cottonwood Creek

("Fred" Fish Key Watershed)

§ ̈¦90

Mill

Cr

Rocker

Gulch

Johnson

Cr

Spring

Cr

Hensley Gulch

Clark Fork River

Perkins

Gulch, N Fk

Cottonwo od

Cr, N Fk

Warm Springs Cr

Cottonwood Cr, S Fk

Perdee

Cr

Jack

Cr

Homestead

Cr

Sand Ho llow Cr DryC ottonwoo

Cr, N

d

Fk

Cotton w M

ood Cr,

idd le Fk

Dry C ottonwo

Cr, S od Fk

Cook Cr

Sand Cr

Reese Anderson Cr

Ho

Burnt

llow Cr

Cot

Dry

tonwood Cr

Whitcraft

Cr

Girard

Gulch Perkins Gulch

Caribou

Cr

Si vl er BowC r

Orofino

Cr

Cottonwood Cr

Ba ggs Cr

Peterson

Cr

C la rk Fork

Ri v er

Deer Lodge

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Forest Plan Key Watersheds

Fisheries

Restoration

Primary Road

Perennial Stream

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not 

necessarily for actual on the ground

 implementation. The USFS is in no 

way condoning or endorsing the 

application of this data for any given 

purpose. It is the sole responsibility 

of the user to determine whether or 

not the data is suitable for the intended 

purpose. It is also the obligation of the 

user to apply this data in an appropriate 

and conscientious manner. The USFS 

provides no warranty, nor accepts any 

liability occurring from any incomplete 

or misleading use of this data.

EDLV Project

ESA Action Area

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

1:150,000

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBADocMaps\BT_BA_Docmap_EsaArea_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_Docmap_EsaArea.mxd
The distance from the bottom of the project area boundary (the Forest Boundary) to the Clark Fork River varies between 5 and 

10 stream miles. Including the area between the Forest Boundary and the Clark Fork River, was done to consider effects from 

sedimentation related to log hauling, below the project area. This considers sedimentation effects from logging trucks traveling 

on the following roads.

• Route 705 (in the Fred Fish Key watershed)

• Reese Anderson Creek Road (in the south side of the Cottonwood watershed and into the north end of the Peterson 

Creek watershed)

• Boulder Creek Road (northeast edge of the Orofino watershed and into southern portion of the Peterson Creek 

watershed)

• Route 9455 (follows the boundary between the Sand Hollow and Dry Cottonwood Creek watersheds)

• Route 85 (Dry Cottonwood Creek watershed); below the junction of Route 9455

• Route 9411 (Upper end of the Sand Hollow watershed; joins Route 9455)

We have driven these roads, evaluating road related sediment delivery points that would be exacerbated by increased loggingtruck traffic. Most delivery points occur at stream-crossings, however, some are where roads closely parallel the stream within 

the RCA (see Route 85 below). 

Descriptions of road locations where-log haul would increase sediment delivery are provided below with information on the 

distances between them and the Clark Fork River. Also included are descriptions of dry stream reaches that would influence 

the potential for sediment transport to the river.

• Route 705 is paved from where it crosses Baggs Creek in section 32 (5.5 miles above the Clark Fork River), to where 

it joins the Boulder Road, adjacent to I-90 in section 34. There are ditch crossings, but no stream crossings below the 

Baggs Creek crossing. Because Route 705 is paved there would be no measurable, log-haul related sediment delivery 

to Baggs Creek below the Project Boundary. 

• Reese Anderson Creek Road has 3 stream crossings; all on Reese Anderson Creek. The uppermost crossing is 3.4 

miles above Reese Anderson’s confluence with Cottonwood Creek and 7.8 miles above the Clark Fork River. Near 

this crossing, most of Reese Anderson’s flow is diverted and carried into a small pond a short distance away. The 

remaining 2 crossings are 1.4 miles downstream, on private property and could not be inventoried. These crossings 

are 2 miles above Reese Anderson’s confluence with Cottonwood Creek and 6.4 miles above Cottonwood Creek’s 

confluence with the Clark Fork River. 

• Observations in September, 2014 showed Cottonwood Creek was dry 0.75 miles above the Reese Anderson’s 

confluence; and also nearly dry 1.9 miles downstream of that point. The lower point is 1.2 miles above the town of 

Deerlodge and 2.5 miles above its confluence with the River. 

• Route 1504 crosses Peterson Creek 10.3 miles above its confluence with the Clark Fork River. Irrigation patterns and 

observations in September of 2014, suggest Peterson Creek is largely dewatered 3.2 miles above the River.

• Boulder Creek Road lacks any stream crossings, or areas adjacent to streams in the portion of the analysis area below 

the project boundary.

• Route 9411 is adjacent to Sand Hollow Creek for 1.3 miles before crossing the stream 0.3 miles below the project 

boundary, and 5.0 miles above the Clark Fork River. Sand Hollow Creek is dry for at least 3 miles above the River. 

• Route 85 (the section that would be used for haul in the proposed action) begins at its junction with FS route 9455, 

extending down to the Morel Road 0.3 miles above the Clark Fork River. There is one point of sediment delivery on 

route 85 in this section that is 0.75 stream miles above the Clark Fork River

21
• Route 9455 lacks any stream crossings, or areas adjacent to streams below the project boundary. It joins FS Route 85, 

0.5 miles above the Morel Road as described above. 

Rationale for defining the ESA Action Area Boundary

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Log Haul Sedimentation

The haul routes between the EDLV project area and I-90 were driven by aquatic specialists. Sediment introduction points 

along the haul routes were identified and a WEPP analyses were conducted. The sediment delivery point closest to the Clark 

Fork River, (FS Route 85; 0.75 miles) has the greatest potential to cause project related sedimentation to the River from log 

hauling. We used this location to determine the lower extent of the analysis area boundary for NEPA; and the Action Area 

Boundary for this Biological Assessment.

WEPP modeling estimated log-haul related sediment increases to Dry Cottonwood Creek, at this location would be 544 lbs per 

year. To provide some perspective on what this amount of sediment may mean regarding aquatic effects, consider that a 5 

gallon bucket of dirt weighs about 40 lbs. If log haul occurred every day throughout the year ( as is the WEPP model 

assumption), one bucket of dirt would be trickled in every 26 days.

Considering another perspective: since a cubic yard of top soil weighs around 1300 lbs (varies between 1300 and 1600 lbs 

based on soil moisture), 550 lbs of top soil equates to approximately 0.4 cubic yards. Should the full 550 pounds of sediment 

be deposited in Dry Cottonwood Creek in one day, and over the next several days be transported and spread evenly over the 

0.75 miles of stream bottom down to the Clark Fork River; it would be only three- thousandths of an inch thick. If it were 

unevenly distributed so that only half of the stream was covered, the increase in sediment added to the stream bottom would be 

six- thousandths of an inch. 

In other words, it would be highly insignificant and discountable to fish in the Clark Fork River. As a matter of fact, over 

those few days, it would become insignificant for fish in Dry Cottonwood Creek within a short distance downstream. Those

550 pounds of sediment spread evenly over 300 yards would result in deposition that is only 15/1000th of an inch thick. If it 

were spread over half the stream for 100 yards, it would still be less than 1/10th of an inch deep would be unmeasurable, and 

thus undetectable, by most monitoring methods used by biologists today. 

The effects described above are without considering the effects of: 1) application of road management BMPs that would limit

the amounts of sediment that would be actually delivered as a result of the project; 2) natural stream characteristics which 

provide capabilities to cope with pulses of introduced sediment; and 3) effects of irrigation diversion ditches.

• Prior to log haul, BMPs would be applied to all haul routes within RCAs. This would reduce the amounts of sediment 

below current estimates, and in most circumstances, should fully compensate for log haul sedimentation

• Most streams maintain some level of resilience to accommodate increases in sedimentation. During high flow 

periods when water levels exceed “bank-full”, some percentage of in-channel sediment is removed when it is 

deposited outside the wetted stream channel on flood plains and point bars, eliminating its potential for negative 

instream effects. This precludes an automatic assumption of negative aquatic effects from sediment introductions 

(especially when they are reasonably small) as the distance from the point of delivery increases.

22
• Many streams within the Action Area, have diversion ditches on them (as evidenced by dry stream segments in the 

Deerlodge Valley). Diverting flow from the streams into ditches will also divert the sediment being transported. 

Based on estimated amounts of sediment that would be delivered, from log-haul and other actions, the locations of sediment 

delivery points, the mitigation effects of road management BMP applications, the tendencies for stream resiliency to handle

sediment pulses, and the effects of downstream diversion ditches; limiting the Action Area boundary to exclude the Clark Fork 

River, is appropriate.

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Effects on Stream Temperature

Alterations in riparian vegetation can reduce shading for streams, resulting in increased water temperatures. Change in 

exposure to solar radiation is the primary cause for increases in surface water temperatures. Factors that influence exposure are 

stream channel orientation, water width, topographic shade and vegetative shade (Cristea and Janisch 2007). They stated that 

120-foot buffers approximate canopy density in unharvested areas. Beschta et. al. (1987) indicated a 98-foot-wide (30-m) 

buffer provides the same level of shading as that of an old-growth stand.

Some trees in Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs) will be cut for log worm fencing and to create “downed tree barriers” 

(referred to as “tree felling” in Table 2 above) to reduce livestock access to the stream. The objective of the fencing and 

downed tree barriers is to protect stream banks and riparian vegetation. The areas protected by the treatments would be no less 

than 75 feet on each side of the stream. 

While trees in riparian areas would be cut, the extent of harvest would not be extensive enough to cause substantive changes in 

stream temperatures. Data reported by Cristea and Janisch (2007; figure 11), indicates that in two different studies, reducing 

the buffer width of the vegetative canopy by 20 – 25 feet along streams for a length of 1500 feet resulted in temperature 

increases of only 0.2 to 0.45 oF. Certainly the number of trees needed for these treatments would not approximate a 

continuous 20 – 25 foot wide clearing. As such there should be no significant increase in stream temperatures. 

Even if temperature increases were expected where stream and riparian improvements are proposed, it’s doubtful they would 

substantially influence stream temperatures downstream. More recent research is suggesting that streams tend to buffer 

environmental influences in a way that promotes equilibrium and limits temperature shifts. While Betschta et. al. (1987) 

suggested temperature declines as streams flowed downstream were uncommon, Johnson (2004) found that substrate 

composition influences daily temperature fluctuations, and that maximum stream temperatures immediately responded to the 

placement and removal of shade. She noted distinct differences in stream temperature patterns between a reach where the 

stream bottom was primarily bedrock, versus one that was primarily alluvial. The bedrock reach exhibited higher maximum, 

lower minimum and wider diurnal temperature fluctuations than the alluvial reach. She suggests the tendency for most 

streams to have high heterogeneity in substrate types throughout their lengths, contributes to a limited understanding of the

influences that stream bottoms and shading have on temperature dynamics. 

Johnson (2004) work suggests the complexity of factors driving stream temperature precludes the presumption that 

temperature increases would be reflected downstream. This is reinforced by recognition of the influence of stream substrates 

and hyporheic flows (beneath and alongside the stream bed where there is mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water) 

on stream temperatures, and the potential for notable temperature declines to occur over relatively short distances. 

23
As such, effects from this project on stream temperatures, would be insignificant and discountable within the Action Area. 

Limiting the Action Area boundary to preclude the Clark Fork River is appropriate regarding potential effects from changes in 

stream temperature. 

Magnitude and Scope of Project Related Effects on stream flows.

A stream system’s channel morphology, including streambed and streambank stability, reflects the existing balance between 

stream flow, sediment input, and substrate/bank composition. If one of these components varies, there is a corresponding 

change with the other two. When peak flow is increased, there is an increase in the amount of energy available to transport 

sediment and erode stream banks. If there are excessive increases in peak flows, they can erode and alter the shape of the 

channel and negatively impact stream habitat. If excessive reductions in tree canopy occur within a watershed, there is a 

potential to increase peak flows to undesirable levels. 

Changes in water yield associated with forest removal within a watershed, result from:

1. Reductions in vegetative transpiration (from loss of trees)

2. decreases in snow and rain interception and evaporation (from loss of canopy cover), 

3. increases in net precipitation reaching the ground 

As such, changes in water yield tend to be related to reductions in canopy cover or the basal area of trees removed. The 

current research (Grant et al. 2008) indicates that flow increases are generally not measurable until about 25 percent of the 

basal area of a forested watershed has been harvested in 30 years or less. This is not necessarily the level that would cause 

channel instability (it is the estimated threshold for creating detectable change) but it is a threshold that tends to be considered 

when assessing management risk to resources.

However, the actual threshold that will cause changes in water yield is difficult to predict, because there are many complex 

interactions that influence the fate of rain or snow once it reaches the ground. 

For example, counter to the factors above which favor increased water yield, is the tendency for increased rates of snow 

ablation (evaporation) once snow is on the ground. This occurs because ground level solar radiation and wind currents are 

greater in open areas (i.e. where trees have been removed) versus forested areas. Ground level solar radiation and wind speed 

are also influenced by aspect and topography, so the location and topographic characteristics of canopy removal play a role.

Because the extent and rate of change to canopy cover differs with the types of disturbance, we need to consider the effects of 

beetle caused mortality differently than those from timber harvest. 

Large-scale beetle mortality appears to have less influence on factors driving increased in water yield than clear-cutting green 

trees. In mature mixed pine, spruce, and subalpine fir forests, the canopy intercepts approximately 30% of growing season 

precipitation, which subsequently evaporates reducing the amount of moisture that reaches the ground (Spittlehouse, 2007). In 

Colorado, a well-developed understory below an old MPB killed stand intercepted as much rain as live trees (Schmid et al. 

1991).

At long-term research sites on the Thompson-Okanagan Plateau (Washington), the maximum snow water equivalent (SWE) in 

mature lodgepole pine stands averages 11% less than that in recent clearcuts (Redding et. al. 2008). In the central interior, 

SWE in stands that have lost their needles (grey attack) and in a green stands were 25-50% and 50-70% 53% less, 

respectively, than that measured in adjacent clearcuts (Beaudry, 2007; Boon, 2007a; as cited by Redding et. al. 2008). There 

was, however, little difference in snow accumulation between a green pine stand and a grey pine stand near Prince George 

during a year of low snowfall (Beaudry, 2007; as cited by Redding et. al. 2008).

Beetle caused mortality tends to result in intermediate levels of transpiration, rain and snow interception, evaporation and 

snowmelt processes, when compared to green tree stands and clear-cuts, because: 1) Beetle mortality results in an 

intermediate level of canopy reduction since the trees remain standing for a substantial period of time after they die; 2) beetle 

mortality tends to happen progressively over a number of years. This results in a relatively slow progression of change, with a 

mix of green, red and gray phase trees present across stands; all exhibiting different rates of vegetative transpiration, rain and 

24
snow interception and evaporation; 3) In a heavily infested stand, the canopy slowly declines over 1-3 years as the needles fall 

off, allowing time for some increase in understory vegetation to increase and assume some of the role the overstory played in 

hydrologic processes. 4) clear-cut harvest results in immediate removal of the tree canopy while beetle-killed trees remain 

standing for 15 to 20 years, providing some interception and shade; and 5) harvesting using mechanical equipment tends to

result in soil compaction which reduces water infiltration rates and promotes overland flows. 

Within the action area, beetles have killed between 14 and 32% of the forested canopy across watersheds (see more detailed 

discussion below under Environmental Baselines and Analysis of Effects). We have observed indications of increased water 

tables leading to an assumption some change in water yield might have occurred. However, we have no data to verify this and 

it is difficult to dissociate these observations from varying annual precipitation patterns. Given the mix of red and gray phase 

trees within/across watersheds - and the fact that beetle killed stands demonstrate canopy characteristics that are intermediate 

between green tree stands and clear cut areas - we estimate the influence of these levels of mortality may be only 40 – 50% of 

the effect that complete harvest and removal of the dead over-story would have on water yield. Given this, the levels of 

mortality don’t appear to be substantive enough to cause water yield increases.

We have not witnessed any stream channel instability attributable to increased peak flows (which is what represents the risk to 

instream habitat). Should increases in water yield be predicted, they do not necessarily equate to increases in peak flows. 

Redding et. al. (2008) indicated periodic snow disappearance may occur in open areas before the main melt season, and could 

de-synchronize snowmelt and streamflow generation within a watershed. This could stagger the timing of groundwater 

delivery to streams, and mitigate changes in peak run-off levels.

All this considered, we don’t expect the actions proposed would act cumulatively to create significant changes in peak flows 

or to create channel instability (see Analysis of Effects below). 

In summary, the effects from this project on fisheries habitat from increased water yield and peak flows, would be 

insignificant and discountable to the Clark Fork River. Even if increases in peak flow were predicted, there would be no 

significant effect on the Clark Fork River (either positive or negative) because of the extensive network of water diversions

and irrigation ditches in the valley. As such, it is appropriate to exclude the river from the action area with regard to changes in 

water yield and peak flows.

Species Ecology and Habitat Requirements

Bull trout exhibit a number of life-history strategies. Stream-resident bull trout complete their entire life cycle in the tributary 

streams where they spawn and rear. Most bull trout are migratory, spawning in tributary streams where juvenile fish usually 

rear from one to four years before migrating to either a larger river (fluvial) or lake (adfluvial) where they spend their adult 

life, returning to the tributary stream to spawn (Fraley and Shepard 1989). These migratory forms occur in areas where 

conditions allow for movement from upper watershed spawning streams to larger downstream waters that contain greater 

foraging opportunities (Dunham and Rieman 1999, p. 646). Resident and migratory forms may be found together, and either 

form can produce resident or migratory offspring (Rieman and McIntyre 1993).

Bull trout have more specific habitat requirements than most other salmonids (Rieman and McIntyre 1993). Habitat 

components that particularly influence their distribution and abundance include water temperature, cover, channel form and 

stability, spawning and rearing substrate conditions, and migratory corridors (Fraley and Shepard 1989, Goetz 1989, Watson 

and Hillman 1997). 

At all life stages, bull trout require complex forms of cover, including large woody debris, undercut banks, boulders, and pools 

(Fraley and Shepard 1989, Watson and Hillman 1997). Juveniles and adults frequently inhabit side channels, stream margins, 

and pools with suitable cover (Sexauer and James 1997). McPhail and Baxter (1996) reported that newly emerged fry are 

secretive and hide in gravel along stream edges and side channels. They also reported that juveniles are found mainly in pools 

but also in riffles and runs, maintain focal sites near the bottom, and are strongly associated with instream cover, particularly 

overhead cover such as woody debris or riparian vegetation. Bull trout have been observed overwintering in deep beaver 

ponds or pools containing large woody debris (Jakober 1995). Adult bull trout migrating to spawning areas have been 

recorded as staying two to four weeks at the mouths of spawning tributaries in deeper holes or near logs or cover debris 

25
(Fraley and Shepard 1989, Knotek 2011). Bull trout may seasonally use swift-water environments where they provide a form 

of cover. Riparian vegetation, large wood, diversity in stream channel morphology including deep pools, side-channels, 

undercut banks and substrates, and in some cases access to downstream environments supportsindividual and population 

growth and allows for normal bull trout behavior.

Bull trout typically spawn from August to November during periods of decreasing water temperatures (Swanberg 1997). 

However, migratory forms are known to begin spawning migrations as early as April and to move upstream as much as 250 

km (155 mi) to spawning areas (Fraley and Shepard 1989, Swanberg 1997). Watson and Hillman (1997) concluded watersheds 

must have specific physical characteristics to provide the necessary habitat requirements for bull trout spawning and rearing, 

and that the characteristics are not necessarily ubiquitous throughout the watersheds in which bull trout occur. The preferred 

spawning habitat of bull trout consists of low-gradient stream reaches with loose, clean gravel (Fraley and Shepard 1989). 

Fraley and Shepard (1989) reported that initiation of spawning by bull trout in the Flathead River system appeared to be 

related largely to water temperature, with spawning beginning when water temperatures dropped below 10 °C (50 °F). Goetz 

(1989) reported a temperature range from 4 to 10 C (39 to 50 F). Such areas often are associated with cold-water springs or 

groundwater upwelling (Rieman et al. 1997, Baxter et al.1999). Fraley and Shepard (1989) also found that groundwater 

influence and proximity to cover are important factors influencing spawning site selection. They reported the combination of

relatively specific requirements resulted in a restricted spawning distribution in relation to available stream habitat.

Depending on water temperature, egg incubation is normally 100 to 145 days (Pratt 1992). Water temperatures of 1.2 to 5.4 C 

(34.2 to 41.7 F) have been reported for incubation, with an optimum (best embryo survivorship) temperature reported to be

from 2 to 4 C (36 to 39 F) (Fraley and Shepard 1989, McPhail and Baxter 1996). Juveniles remain in the substrate after 

hatching, such that the time from egg deposition to emergence of fry can exceed 200 days. During the relatively long 

incubation period in the gravel, bull trout eggs are especially vulnerable to fine sediments and water quality degradation 

(Fraley and Shepard 1989). Increases in fine sediment appear to reduce egg survival and emergence (Pratt 1992). Juveniles 

are likely also affected. High juvenile densities have been reported in areas characterized by a diverse cobble substrate and a 

low percent of fine sediments (Shepard et al. 1984). Habitats with cold water temperature, appropriately-sized stream 

substrate, and stream substrate with a low level of fine material (i.e., less than 12 percent of fine substrate less than 0.85 

millimeter (mm) (0.03 inch (in.)) in diameter) are necessary factors for egg incubation and juvenile rearing that supports 

individual and population growth.

Species Occurrence 

The only federally listed or proposed listed fish species occurring on the BDNF is Columbia River bull trout (Salvelinus 

confluentus) (Threatened) (Federal Register 63FR31647). 

The Columbia Headwater Recovery Unit occurs within western Montana, northern Idaho, and the northeastern corner of 

Washington. Major drainages include the Coeur d’Alene Lake Basin, Kootenai River Basin, and the Clark Fork River Basin. 

In this plan for the Columbia Headwaters Recovery Unit, the USFWS reorganized the 2002 structure, based on latest available 

science and fish passage improvements that have rejoined previously fragmented habitats. There are now 35 bull trout core 

areas (compared to 47 in 2002) for this recovery unit. Fifteen of the 35 are referred to as “complex” core areas as they 

represent larger interconnected habitats, each containing multiple spawning streams considered to host separate and largely 

genetically identifiable local populations. 

The The Upper Clark Fork Core Area includes the Upper Clark Fork River and all tributaries upstream of the Blackfoot River

(it was previously defined as everything upstream of Milltown Dam, however, with the removal of the dam in 2008 the lower 

boundary was re-defined). Milltown Dam, constructed in 1906, had isolated bull trout populations in the UCFCA from the 

rest of the basin for over a century. Bull trout in the UCFCA probably originated historically as adfluvial spawning fish from 

Lake Pend Oreille in northern Idaho. Following construction of Milltown Dam, bull trout stocks in the UCFCA effectively 

became either fluvial or resident. 

Bull Trout Status in the Upper Clark Fork River Core Area: 

Bull trout in the UCFCA have esentially been reduced to resident populations in the headwaters of the Warm Springs, 

Boulder, and Harvey Creek drainages; and may possibly remain in very low numbers in the Little Blackfoot River. Local 

26
populations are present within the Warm Springs Creek and Boulder Creek drainages. Bull trout in Harvey Creek and the 

Little Blackfoot River, while not being recognized as local populations, are potentially important in bull trout recovery. 

Most of the bull trout in the Core Area are resident and the reason they primarily persist in tributary streams is due to metals 

contamination and because much of the mainstem Clark Fork River and the lower reaches of many tributaries are unsuitable 

for bull trout (warm and dewatered) in midsummer. Widespread livestock ranching in the Butte/Deerlodge valley has had, and 

continues to have pervasive impacts on bull trout habitat. Many stream channels have been straightened, and riparian 

corridors overgrazed. Unnaturally wide stream channels and poor riparian vegetation conditions, combined with irrigation 

diversions that reduce mid-summer flows, have disconnected stream segments and encouraged warm water temperatures. 

Lack of water in the lower reaches of tributaries, and their affect on flows in the river is a major limiting factor for bull trout in 

the UCFCA (MBTSG 1995). Numerous barriers and irrigation diversions reinforce population isolation and the fragmented 

distribution of bull trout in this core area. 

The substantial distance between local populations and the suitability of habitat in the river and the lower end of tributary 

streams as migratory corridors is a noted concern in the recovery of bull trout. However, efforts are underway to arrest and 

clean up metal contamination in the Clark Fork River flood plain. This should result in substantial improvements in water 

quality and bull trout habitat suitability(USDI 2004 p. 56). 

Streams in the Upper Clark Fork River basin, when functioning properly, would provide an abundance and diversity of 

habitats desired by bull trout, suggesting that the area historically supported a healthy, well connected and widely distributed 

population. The Upper Clark Fork Core Area may have supported 1000 to 1500 redds prior to the 1850’s (USDA 2013). 

Fish Sampling History and Pertinent Information

Over the past 30 years, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks has regularly monitored trout populations in the Upper Clark Fork 

River, focusing on two primary sections. These sections include the pH Shack section near Warm Springs and the WilliamsTavenner Section located several miles downstream of Deer Lodge. Since 2008, two sections were added to improve 

documentation of fish distribution and densities throughout the upper river, and to establish better baseline data prior to the 

beginning of superfund cleanup work on the Clark Fork River. The sections added include the Phosphate Section near 

Phosphate (added in 2008) and the Below Sager Lane Section located several miles upstream of Deer Lodge (added in 2010). 

All sampling has consisted of mark and recapture electrofishing during the spring (typically during the month of April) with a 

boat mounted electrofishing unit to obtain an estimate of the number of trout per mile of river. In 1987, they continuously 

sampled the Upper Clark Fork River from Warm Springs to Jens. A similar effort was completed by FWP in 2009. 

Twelve bull trout were captured in the upper Clark Fork River between 1989 and 1994; eight of these fish were found in 

vicinity of Warm Springs Creek and Racetrack Creek (PTS 2002; as cited in USFS 2013). No bull trout were captured in 

either the 1987 or 2009 continuous sampling efforts. The only bull trout recently captured by FWP was in 2012 a short 

distance upstream of Gold Creek; approximately 25 river miles downstream of the project action area. 

Within this timeframe, FWP has received three substantiated reports of bull trout being captured by anglers below 

Warmsprings Ponds ( Jason Lindstrom, personal communication; Jan 6, 2015). It is his perspective that an occasional bull 

trout will move into the upper-most reach of the river from Warmsprings Creek to take advantage of increased food –

available because of elevated nutrients in the outflow from warmsprings ponds. Fish that occasionally show up there likely 

move back into Warmsprings Creek when warmer water temperatures in the river become unsuitable.

The data collected through substantial and regularly conducted electrofishing sampling in the Clark Fork River from Gold 

Creek to Warmsprings Ponds, over the last 30 years; coupled with other pertinent information, seems to reasonably support the

assumption that bull trout are largely absent from this 60 stretch of river. Three validated angler reports near the ponds, in 

recent years, suggest occasional, early spring presence by a few individuals in the very upper end of the 30 mile segment 

adjacent to the EDLV project action area (From the ponds to the mouth of Cottonwood Creek at Deerlodge). Information also 

suggests bull trout occasionally are present near Gold Creek; as evidenced by the capture of a single bull trout in 2012 near 

Jens (email communication; Jason Lindstrom - FWP area biologist, Jan 6, 2015).

Stream Sampling by FWP within the Action Area also indicated bull trout are absent from streams in the Cottonwood Creek 

drainage. As such, we believe - as communicated by FWP (email communication; Jason Lindstrom - FWP area biologist, July 

30, 2014) - that bull trout are absent from the project area . 

27
In summary, all available information and sampling data, suggests bull trout are likely absent from the project action area. 

This is based on the absence of any documented occurrences within the Action Area, over several decades, and the fact that 

they are also largely absent from the Clark Fork River adjacent to the EDLV Project Action Area. Given this, the most likely 

determination of this project’s effect on bull trout would be “No Effect”. However, this BA is being completed as a 

precautionary measure to ensure compliance with ESA Section 7 consultation requirements, under the unlikely circumstance 

that a bull trout strays into the Acton Area during project implementation.

Presence of Critical Habitat

There is no Critical Habitat in the EDLV Project Action Area.

Environmental Baseline Description

The EDLV Project action area is situated within two 5th code HUC watersheds (Clark Fork River – Deerlodge;1701020107 

and Clark Fork River – Warm Springs;1701020104) . They represent two of eight 5th field watersheds that comprise the 1.5 

million acre, Upper Clark Fork River sub-basin.

Clark Fork River - Deerlodge 5th Field Watershed - Eight 6th field sub-watersheds comprise the Clark Fork River – Deerlodge 5th field Watershed. These include 

 Dempsey Creek (170102010701)

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702) 

 Clark Fork River – Powell Creek (170102010703)

 Peterson Creek (17010201704)

 Tin Cup Joe Creek (170102010705)

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706)

 Clark Fork River – Deerlodge (170102010707)

 Clark Fork River – Oneil Creek (170102010708)

Of these, 3 sub-watersheds are all or partly within the ESA action area for this project. They are:

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702) 

 Peterson Creek (17010201704)

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706)

Clark Fork River – Warmsprings 5th Field Watershed – Seven 6th field sub-watersheds comprise the Clark Fork River – Deerlodge 5th field Watershed. These include:

 Warm Springs (170102010401)

 Upper Lost Creek (170102010402)

 Lower Lost Creek (170102010403)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404)

 Modesty Creek (170102010405)

 Racetrack Creek (170102010406)

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407)

Of these, 3 sub-watersheds are all or partly within the ESA action area for this project. They are:

 Warm Springs (170102010401)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404)

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407)

28
Species Indicators: 

The following descriptions correspond to the 4 species indicators listed on the FWS Matrix of Diagnostic of 

Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout (USFWS 1998). Each species indicator for the existing condition is 

described and rated at the core area scale. Stony Creek is considered a local population.

1) Core Area/Local Population Size: 

Within the upper Clark Fork Core area the USFWS has identified 2 local populations. The status and trend of bull trout in 

monitored populations within this core area appear to be stable at low numbers, with some possibility of decline. The inability 

to define trend is related to inherent variability within the data over the period of monitoring. Essentially, the data set is 

inadequate (longer in time; or larger in sample size) to assure a reasonable interpretation in trend.

Redd surveys in Boulder Creek, conducted intermittently since 1999 have resulted in counts between 1 – 18, and averaged 10 

per year (# of years monitored = 10). 

For Foster Creek, the average number of redds per year was 5 (# years monitored = 15) and ranged between 2 and 12. The 

average number of redds in Twin Lakes Creek was 17 (# of years monitored = 17) and ranged between 6 and 27. In Warm 

Springs Creek the average number of redds is 17 (# of years monitored = 15) and ranged between 8 and 32.

Surveys within the Warm Springs local population, for years when Foster, Twin Lakes, and Warm Springs Creek were all 

sampled, ranged in total between 16 – 64 and averaged 48 (# of years monitored = 10). Data for years when at least one of the 

three were not sampled are as follows. 

Currently, there are believed to be approximately 100 – 200 adult bull trout in the Upper Clark Fork River system. The Upper 

Clark Fork Core Area may have supported 1000 to 1500 redds prior to the 1850’s (USFS 2013). 

Based on the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/ Pathways and Indicators guide for making bull trout determinations: Because 

one of the two local populations may be below 50 adults.

 The Core Area determination for bull trout Population Size is: Functioning at Unacceptable Risk

2) Growth & Survival: 

The Upper Clark Fork River Core Area supports 2 local populations (Boulder Creek and Warm Springs Creek) and 2 other 

streams supporting bull trout that are not recognized as local populations (Harvey Creek and the Little Blackfoot River). They 

are highly fragmented and limited in their potential to recover throughout the core area. It does not appear to be undergoing 

“rapid decline”, but will not recover within one generation. Based on the best available information and data on the UCFCA

Based on the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/ Pathways and Indicators guide for making bull trout determinations... 

 The Core Area determination for bull trout Growth and Survival is: Functioning at Risk

3) Life History Diversity and Isolation: 

Within the UCFCA, the two local populations are comprised of fish exhibiting a resident life history; and migratory fish 

appear to be largely absent. Local populations appear to be comprised of less than 2000 fish.

 

Based on the USFWS Matrix of Diagnostics/ Pathways and Indicators guide for making bull trout determinations... 

 The Core Area determination for bull trout Live History Diversty and Isolation is: Functioning at Unacceptable 

Risk

4) Persistence and Genetic Integrity: 

Within the UCFCA, there is likely no interaction between the Boulder Creek and the Warm Springs Creek local populations. 

29
They are both relatively small and competitive species readily displace bull trout. 

Based on the Matrix of Diagnostics/ Pathways and Indicators guide for making bull trout determinations... 

 The Core Area determination for bull trout Live History Diversty and Isolation is: Functioning at Unacceptable 

Risk

Habitat Pathways: 

The following descriptions correspond to the 19 habitat indicators listed on the FWS Matrix of Diagnostic of 

Diagnostics/Pathways and Indicators for bull trout (USFWS 1998). Each habitat indicator is described and rated at the 

appropriate scale - typically at the 6th field watershed scale, except for refugia, which is evaluated at the core area population 

scale. The B-D NF developed a rule-set in 2008 in order to apply a consistent approach to making functional status calls for 

each matrix indicator across all watersheds. Where data exists for a specific indicator this data is displayed. Where 

appropriate, this data may be used to override the call indicated by the rule-set. 

1) Temperature: 

Current baseline determinations for water temperature in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Water temperature is strongly influenced by the condition of the riparian conservation area. A functional RCA supports 

functioning stream channels, including streambanks, a proper width/depth raio, floodplain connectivity and indirectly 

sediment levels and substrate composition and development and maintenance of adequate pool habitat. These features all 

contribute to a natural water temperature regime in a watershed. 

Except for Cottonwood Creek and it’s tributaries (Cottonwood Creek sub-watershed) most of the streams in the action area are 

completely lacking substanative riparian vegetation or it is severely reduced in abundance and effectiveness. All streams are 

dewatered to some extent. Many of them completely.

2) Sediment: 

Current baseline determinations for Sediment in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FUR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

The functional status of sediment is derived from the status of streambanks and the location and density of roads in the 

watershed. Streambanks are rated FUR due to the amount of low gradient stream length within a grazing allotment, although 

the allotment is currently vacant. The road densities in the watersheds range from 1.6 miles/mile2 in Cottonwood Creek to 3.4 

miles/mile2 in Clark Fork River – Sand Hollow. The percent of perennial stream length within 300’ are all high; ranging from 

30 in Cottonwood Creek to 75% in Dry Cottonwood Creek. This combination of factors leads to a functioning at unacceptable 

risk call for sediment in the Sand Basin Creek sub-watershed. The portion of stream length without a shade covertype are the 

highest in Dry Cottonwood Creek and Clark Fork River – Sand Hollow at 19 and 35%, respectively.

30
2) Chemical Contamination / Nutrients:

Current baseline determinations for Chemical Contamination / Nutrients in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area 

are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FA

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FA

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FA

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FA

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FA

Peterson Creek is listed as an impaired stream on Montana’s 303-d list. It is impaired for sedimentwithin the project area 

and for temperature below the Forest Boundary.

4) Physical Barriers: 

Current baseline determinations for Physical barriers in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FA

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FA

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FA

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FA

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FA

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FA

Determinations of Barrier ratings are being manually revised to FAR and FUR (see below) based on the extent of 

dewatering from irrigation withdrawal that occurs within each subwatershed. This results, in many cases, in a complete 

loss of connection with the Clark Fork River.

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

5) Substrate Embededness: 

Current baseline determinations for substrate embeddedness in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FUR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

The functional status of substrate embeddednes, like sediment, is derived from the status of streambanks and the location 

and density of roads in the watershed. They are driven by higher than desired road densities; high proportion of stream 

lengths within 300 feet of a road or trail and moderate to high portions of streams without a shade covertype.

6) Large Woody Debris: 

Current baseline determinations for large woody debris in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

31
 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Large woody debris is a function of the percentage of stream covered by conifers or deciduous trees and the proportion of 

stream within close proximity of roads (risk of removal by firewood cutters). The percentage of perennial stream within 

300 feet of a road or trail ranges from 30% in Cottonwood Creek to 75% in Dry Cottonwood Creek.

7) Pool Frequency & Quality: 

Current baseline determinations for pool frequency and puality in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Both pool frequency and the abundance of large pools are influenced by the stability of the stream channel (as controlled 

by streambank stability and width/depth ratios) and the availability of large wood to form complex, high quality pool 

habitat. 

8) Large Pools: 

Current baseline determinations for large pools in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Both pool frequency and the abundance of large pools are influenced by the stability of the stream channel (as controlled 

by streambank stability and width/depth ratios) and the availability of large wood to form complex, high quality pool 

habitat. 

9) Off-Channel Habitat: 

Current baseline determinations for off-channel habitat in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

The condition of off-channel habitat is influenced by the same features as pool habitat – the functionality of the RCA and 

LWD. LWD plays a somewhat greater role in forming off-channel habitat then it does (potentially) in pool formation. 

10) Refugia: 

32
Current baseline determinations for refugia in the core area is:

This indicator is not rated for the Upper Clark Fork Core Area population. The Montana Bull Trout level 1 team has not 

developed criteria for this indicator.

11) Wetted Width/Max Depth Ratio: 

Current baseline determinations for wetted width/maximum depth in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

The functional status of width/depth ratios and streambank stability are influenced by the condition of the RCA, which 

reflects the level of disturbance within close proximity to the channel, and disturbances at the watershed scale as depicted 

by changes in peak and base flows. RCA conditions in the lower ends of the action area are the primary elements driving 

ratings for this indicator.

12) Streambank Condition: 

Current baseline determinations for water temperature in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Streambank stability and width/depth ratios are influenced by the condition of the RCA and changes in the timing and 

magnitude of peak and base flows. RCA conditions in the lower ends of the action area are the primary elements driving 

ratings for this indicator.

13) Floodplain Connectivity: 

Current baseline determinations for floodplain connectivity in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FUR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Floodplain connectivity is influenced by the same indicators as streambank condition and width/depth ratios. 

Additionally the presence of roads along streams can directly impact floodplain connectivity. Using the streambank 

condition call modified by stream proximity to roads give this indicator a functioning at unacceptable risk status.

14) Change in Peak/Base Flows: 

Current baseline determinations for change in peak/base flows in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

33
 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Changes in watershed hydrograph are generally related to reductions in forest canopy. Events and actions that cause this 

are wildfire, prescribed fire, timber harvest and other types of timber and vegetation management prescriptions.. 

A more specific look at fire disturbance and past management was conducted in assessing ECA for this BA. It resulted in 

substantial reductions in ECA levels, primarily because it was spatially assessed. Rather than simply totaling acres from 

FACTs, it considered whether treatments occurred on the same acre. If so the acre was only counted once.

Table 4. Acres of beetle caused forest canopy mortality and changes in equivalent clearcut area (ECA), by watershed, 

within the ESA action area. 

Watershed

Forested 

Acres in 

Watershed

Acres ECA 

From Last 

Baseline 

Determination

Revised

ECA

Acres1 

Percent 

ECA2

Cottonwood 

Creek 19293 3337 486 2.5

Peterson Creek 8022 1879 67 0.8

Clark Fork River 

– Caribou Creek 5422 1496 196 3.6

Warm Springs 7939 1371 44 0.6

Dry Cottonwood 

Creek 8522 3395 209 2.5

Clark Fork River 

– Sand Hollow 1063 99 41 3.8

1 – Represents the amount of canopy removal from naturally caused fire, prescribed fire treatments, 

timber harvest and other vegetative treatments over the last 30 years.

2 – Represents Revidsed acres ECA divided by Forested Acres in Watershed

Mountain pine beetle infestations over the last decade has resulted in substantial conifer mortality and a reduction of 

forest canopy cover within the action area (Table 5). 

Table 5. Acres of beetle caused forest canopy mortality and changes in equivalent clearcut area (ECA), by watershed, 

within the ESA action area. 

Watershed

Forested 

Acres in 

Watershed

Acres of 

Mortality in 

Forested 

Canopy 

From 

Mountain 

Pine Beetle

Percent of 

Forested 

Canopy 

Killed by 

Mountain 

Pine 

Beetle

Estimated 

change in 

ECA from 

Beetle 

Caused 

Mortality1

Change in 

ECA from 

Beetle 

Caused 

Mortality

Cottonwood Creek 19293 5614 29.1 3368 17%

Peterson Creek 8022 1518 18.9 910 11%

Clark Fork River –

Caribou Creek 5422 689 12.7 413 8%

Warm Springs 7939 546 6.9 327 4%

Dry Cottonwood 

Creek 8522 1603 18.8 961 11%

Clark Fork River –

Sand Hollow 1063 182 17.2 109 10%

1 – Because beetle killed stands exhibit an effect on water yield that is intermediate between a green tree (live) stand and a 

34
clear-cut; we multiplied the acres of dead canopy by 0.6, in order to estimate the change in equivalent clearcut area (ECA) 

caused by beetle mortality. This allows an comparison of beetle related effects to the threshold of 25% forest removal; 

cited in the literature as the level where measurable water yield increases may occur. 

Table 6 summarizes the revised ECA acres from our revision of past fire and management caused activities (Table 4) and 

the mortality caused by mountain pine beetle (Table 5), to provide a final revised baseline of ECA acres prior to 

implementation of the EDLV project

Table 6. Acres of Beetle caused (ECA), along with those caused by fire events and past management and 

and the revised baseline determination for ECA by watershed, within the ESA action area. 

Watershed

Forested 

Acres in 

Watershed

Acres ECA 

From Last 

Baseline 

Determination

Revised

ECA

Acres1

Percent 

ECA2

Revised 

Baseline 

Determination 

for ECA

Cottonwood Creek 19293 3337 3854 20% FA

Peterson Creek 8022 1879 977 12% FA

Clark Fork River –

Caribou Creek 5422 1496 609 11% FA

Warm Springs 7939 1371 371 5% FA

Dry Cottonwood 

Creek 8522 3395 1170 14% FA

Clark Fork River –

Sand Hollow 1063 99 150 14% FA

1 – Represents acres of canopy removal from beetle caused mortality, wildfire fire, prescribed fire 

treatments, timber harvest and other vegetative treatments over the last 30 years.

2 – Represents Revidsed acres ECA divided by Forested Acres in Watershed

Revised baseline determinations for change in peak/base flows in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area, based on 

revised ECAs are: no change

15) Drainage network Increase: 

Current baseline determinations for drainage network increase in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

The road densities in the watersheds range from 1.6 miles/mile2 in Cottonwood Creek to 3.4 miles/mile2 in Clark Fork 

River – Sand Hollow. 

16) Road Density & Location: 

Current baseline determinations for road density and location in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FUR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

35
 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

Road densities in the watersheds range from 1.6 miles/mile2 in Cottonwood Creek to 3.4 miles/mile2 in Clark Fork River 

– Sand Hollow. The percent of perennial stream length within 300’ are all high; ranging from 30 in Cottonwood Creek to 

75% in Dry Cottonwood Creek. 

17) Disturbance History: 

This indicator measures the amount and location of disturbance within a watershed. This includes ECA and Road Density 

in Sensitive Land types.

Current baseline determinations for disturbance history in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FA

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FAR

Revised Baseline Determinations for Disturbance History after recalculation of ECA are:

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FAR

18) Riparian Conservation Area: 

Riparian area function can be approximated by analyzing the amount of tree or shrub cover, the length of stream within 

close proximity of a road and the percent of low gradient stream within a grazing allotment. 

Current baseline determinations for riparian conservation area in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FAR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

19) Disturbance Regime: 

This indicator is a synthesis of the disturbance history of the watershed and the resilience of the RCA to moderate the 

effects of that history. Based on these inputs, this 6th field watershed is functioning at unacceptable risk. 

Integration of Habitat Conditions:

Current baseline determinations for disturbance regime in the six subwatersheds in the ESA action area are:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FAR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FAR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FAR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

After revision of ECA determinations the Revised determination for Disturbance Regime is:

36
 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FAR

Habitat Conditions: 

The integrated call for habitat is a compilation of temperature, habitat access, sediment levels and pool quantity and quality. 

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): FUR

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): FUR

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): FUR

 Warm Springs (170102010401): FUR

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): FUR

 Clark Fork River - Sand Hollow (170102010407): FUR

There is no change in the integrated habitat baseline determinations from revision of the ECA acres for this project.

Population Conditions: 

Bull trout in the upper Clark Fork Core Area (UCFCA) have esentially been reduced to resident populations in the headwaters 

of the Warm Springs, Boulder, and Harvey Creek drainages; and may possibly remain in very low numbers in the Little 

Blackfoot River. Local populations are present within the Warm Springs Creek and Boulder Creek drainages. Bull trout in 

Harvey Creek and the Little Blackfoot River, while not being recognized as local populations, are potentially important in bull 

trout recovery. 

Most of the bull trout in the Core Area are resident and the reason they primarily persist in tributary streams is due to metals 

contamination and because much of the mainstem Clark Fork River and the lower reaches of many tributaries are unsuitable 

for bull trout (warm and dewatered) in midsummer. Widespread livestock ranching in the Butte/Deerlodge valley has had, and 

continues to have pervasive impacts on bull trout habitat. Many stream channels have been straightened, and riparian 

corridors overgrazed. Unnaturally wide stream channels and poor riparian vegetation conditions, combined with irrigation 

diversions that reduce mid-summer flows, have disconnected stream segments and encouraged warm water temperatures. 

Lack of water in the lower reaches of tributaries, and their affect on flows in the river is a major limiting factor for bull trout in 

the UCFCA (MBTSG 1995). Numerous barriers and irrigation diversions reinforce population isolation and the fragmented 

distribution of bull trout in this core area. 

The substantial distance between local populations and the suitability of habitat in the river and the lower end of tributary 

streams as migratory corridors is a noted concern in the recovery of bull trout. However, efforts are underway to arrest and 

clean up metal contamination in the Clark Fork River flood plain. This should result in substantial improvements in water 

quality and bull trout habitat suitability(USDI 2004 p. 56). 

Streams in the Upper Clark Fork River basin, when functioning properly, would provide an abundance and diversity of 

habitats desired by bull trout, suggesting that the area historically supported a healthy, well connected and widely distributed 

population. The Upper Clark Fork Core Area may have supported 1000 to 1500 redds prior to the 1850’s (USFS 2013). 

Regular redd count monitoring has been conducted since 1998 in four streams (Boulder Creek, Foster Creek, Twin Lakes 

Creek, and Warm Springs Creek). Redd counts in Twin Lakes and Warm Springs Creeks are generally in the teens to lower 

twenties, while those in Boulder and Foster Creek are about half that, in the single digits and low teens (MFWP, unpublished 

data). 

Current monitoring indices for this core area are probably inadequate for determining minor trends in abundance; due in part 

to the fragmented character of populations, sparse migratory contribution, and prevalence of non-natives (brook and brown 

trout) throughout the system. Trend in the two monitored local populations (Warm Springs and Boulder Creeks) appears to be 

stable at low levels, with some risk numbers are gradually declining. The uncertainty is due to small sample sizes and high 

variability in the data (USDI 2005). 

37
Analysis of Effects

The primary potential for the EDLV project to affect fisheries habitat is through change in:

1. Sediment delivery to streams

2. Stream temperatures

3. Stream flows

Each of these elements is addressed below.

Sediment Delivery to Streams

The proposed actions with potential to change sediment delivery to streams in the Action Area are:

• Timber harvest and vegetation management activities.

• Log Hauling

• Road Related Actions

o Implementation of BMPs

o Road Closures, decommissioning and motorized travel restrictions

o Culvert related actions

• Limiting Livestock Impacts through tree felling and log worm fencing

• Off- site livestock water developments

• Placement of large woody debris (LWD) in streams

Timber Harvest and Vegetation Management Activities

All timber harvest units and vegetation management actions that would affect forest canopy are outside of RCAs. Thus the 

effect from these actions on sediment delivery to streams would be insignificant and discountable, within the action area. 

Log Hauling

Log hauling has the greatest potential to influence sedimentation during implementation of the EDLV project. 

Table 12 in Appendix A provides modeled estimates of current sediment delivery from existing roads and stream crossings, 

that would be used as haul routes, and roads that would be closed under action alternatives. It also provides modeled estimates 

of sediment delivery during and post implementation of for Alternatives 3. Under existing conditions, the total WEPP 

modeling estimate of sediment delivered from those roads is 12,288 lbs/year. It also indicated this would increase to 17,081 

lbs/year during implementation of Alternative 3, then drop to 8546 lbs/year post implementation.

With implementation of the proposed action, there would be measurable long-term reductions in road related sediment 

delivery in 13 of the 21 streams analyzed. 

Of the six streams that would see notable short-term increases in sediment without post implementation reductions from 

current road sedimentation levels, two of them would benefit from riparian and other improvements. Spring Creek would have 

the same done for 0.4 miles of road/trail in the RCA closed. Dry Cottonwood would benefit from 2 miles of Riparian 

improvements to limit livestock access in its tributaries, as well as off-site water development. It would also benefit from 4 

culvert replacements on the NF and SF Dry Cottonwood. Only two would be required to be completed during implementation 

of timber sale activities (including log hauling) by watershed. These improvements should substantially over-compensate for 

any short-term haul related sedimentation.

This leaves the SF Cottonwood Creek, Rocker Gulch, Jack Creek and Burnt Hollow Creek as streams that would not have haul 

related sedimentation fully mitigated by road related actions. This does not consider the benefits that would be provided by 

BMP implementation prior to and after the completion of log hauling. In many instances, we expect the effects of haul would 

be be fully or substantially mitigated. In some locations, it is possible there could be small changes in stream habitat 

38
conditions in the immediate vicinity of sediment introduction points. Effects should not be discernable more than a few 

hundred feet downstream. A measurable decline decline in stream function in these streams should not occur.

The total change across the following streams - that are the primary fisheries within the action area – are –presented below in 

Table 7. The results estimate a 54% increase in sedimentation during project implementation. Post implementation there 

would be a long-term decrease of 38% in sedimentation. These figures are without considering BMP implementation and the 

mitigations they would provide toward sedimentation. They do account for the road closures and decommissionings that 

would occur; which are the primary instigators for the projected post-implementation decreases in sediment levels.

Table 7. Summary of WEPP modeled sediment delivery to the primary fisheries streams in the action area, related to log haul 

and road closures under current conditions, during implementation and post-implementation of the Proposed Action.

6th Code HUC Stream Current Sediment 

delivered (lbs/yr)

Sediment delivered 

during 

implementation 

(lbs/yr)

Post-Implementation 

Sediment Delivered 

(lbs/yr)

Cottonwood Creek 

(Fred Fish Key 

Watershed)

Baggs 139 132 132

Cottonwood 0 0 0

NF Cottonwood 1044 739 212

SF Cottonwood 409 682 394

MF Cottonwood 789 1208 557

Peterson Creek

Peterson 44 76 44

Jack Creek 394 799 365

Dieders Fork 474 649 153

Spring Creek 269 269 0

Clark Fork River -

Caribou Orofino 1552 1797 860

Dry Cottonwood

Dry Cottonwood 1678 2047 1678

NF Dry Cottonwood 828 1587 555

SF Dry Cottonwood 2522 4099 2036

Warm Springs

Perkins Gulch 132 348 66

NF Perkins Gulch 474 691 131

Total 10,473 16,146 6527

Road Related Actions

The primary road related actions are application of BMPs, travel management and road restoration actions, and culvert 

replacements. The effects of BMP application is not reflected in the table above. As such, we consider it an over-estimation 

of effects during project implementation. While there are locations where BMPs will not fully mitigate sediment delivery, we 

believe it will be substantially beneficial in most locations – to the point of fully or nearly-completely off-setting 

sedimentation from log hauling.

Table 8 below lists the types of road related – travel management actions that would benefit aquatic habitats by reducing 

39
sedimentation. They result in reduced impacts (of varying degrees based on the change in management) in:

• 4.9 miles of stream in the Cottonwood Creek subwatershed

• 0.4 miles of stream in the Peterson Creek subwatershed

• 0.3 miles of stream in the Clark Fork River – Caribou subwatershed

• 1.1 miles of stream in the Warm Springs subwatershed

• 1.3 miles of stream in the Dry Cottonwood Creek subwatershed.

Table 8. List of road actions by sub-watershed and the length of stream miles that would benefit from them.

Sub 

Watershed Route # Stream Action Length in RCA (miles)

Cottonwood 

Creek

19870 Jack Creek

Decommission system road 

(obliterate); ensure no hydrologic 

connection with adjacent stream(s)

0.17

8139 Baggs Creek Convert motorized system trail to 

non-motorized system trail 3.2

9330 NF Cottonwood 

Creek

Convert system road to nonmotorized system trail - allow 

motorized admin use; ensure no 

hydrologic connection with adjacent 

stream(s)

0.2

9331

Middle Fork 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Removes road from a Key 

Watershed. Segment not drivable. 

Decommission system road 

(obliterate); ensure no hydrologic 

connection with adjacent stream(s)

0.5

UR8-1 Baggs Creek

Decommission UR road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

adjacent stream

0.4

Peterson 

Creek UR8-75 Spring Creek

Decommission UR road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

0.4

Clark Fork 

River Caribou

78167 Orofino Creek

Close system road, convert to ML 1; 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

stream; Removes road from a 

Riparian Conservation Area and 

winter range.

0.2

9322 Tributary to 

Orofino Creek

Decommission system road 

(obliterate); ensure no hydrologic 

connection with adjacent stream(s)

0.1

Warmsprings 5163 North Fork 

Perkins

Close system road, convert to ML 1; 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

1.1

Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

78258

Trib to NF Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Decommission system road 

(obliterate); ensure no hydrologic 

connection with adjacent stream(s)

0.4

78321

Tributary to Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Close system road, convert to ML 1 0.1

UR8-85

Tributary to Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Decommission UR road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

0.2

40
Sub 

Watershed Route # Stream Action Length in RCA (miles)

UR8-126

SF Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Decommission UR road (obliterate); 

ensure no hydrologic connection with 

adjacent stream(s)

0.4

UT05N0

8W07-02

Trib to SF Dry 

Cottonwood 

Creek

Close motorized use on UT trail 0.2

There are twelve culvert actions proposed as part of the project (Table 1). Seven are required to be finished prior to 

completion of timber harvest activities. One of these (Perkins Gulch) is required to be installed before beginning timber 

harvest actions. It was recently installed and the work is complete. 

These culvert actions will have a short-term sediment delivery effect on their streams, that would probably be measurable – at 

most – for a few hundred yards downstream. Effects would be discountable after the following year’s run-off. The long term 

benefits should be substantial, however, because of the reduced potential for failure and the reduced level of maintenance that 

would be required.

Limiting Livestock Impacts:

The riparian and stream protections that would occur through tree felling and log worm fencing would result in immediate 

reductions in sedimentation, by restricting livestock and their impacts on bank stability. There should be no short term 

increase in sedimentation. 

It is not possible to estimate the amount of sediment reduction that would be achieved. However, the benefits within 

individual streams and across watersheds could be substantive. In total 5.5 miles of stream would see substantially lower 

impacts each year that stream is grazed.

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): 

o NF Cottonwood Creek – 1.0 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): 

o Dieders Fork – 0.3 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Dieders Fork – 0.5 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): 

o Orofino Creek – 0.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

o Tributary to Orofino Creek – 0.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Warm Springs (170102010401): 

o NF Perkins Gulch – 0.1 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Perkins Gulch – 0.4 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): 

o NF Dry Cottonwood Creek 1.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

o NF Dry Cottonwood Creek 0.2 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Tributary to SF Dry Cottonwood Creek - 0.2 miles of stream (tree felling)

Off-site water developments

Like the culvert placements (see description of actions above under Proposed Action), described above off-site water 

developments will result in some short term sedimenaton, although it should be nominal. There should be long-term benefits 

to streams proximal to each development, as a result of the change in movement patterns and distributions. We expect to see a 

reduction in stream-bank impacts, and thus a reduction in sedimentation; although the amount of reduction can’t be estimated 

at this time.

41
Placement of LWD in streams

The project would result in placement of LWD in 1.9 miles of Baggs Creek and 1.5 miles of the Middle Fork of Cottonwood 

Creek (both in the Cottonwood Creek subwatershed). This would substantially improve Pool quality and the quantity of Large 

Pools over 3.4 miles of stream. 

There will be short term increases in sedimentation. However, they should be relatively minor and probably unmeasurable. 

Deposition could sometimes occur where a tree is moved into the channel.

Stream Temperatures

All timber harvest units and vegetation management actions that would affect forest canopy are outside of RCAs. Thus there 

is no potential effect from those actions on water temperature within the action area. 

There would be some trees cut within RCAs to limit livestock access to stream channels (Table 2). The trees would be felled 

and strategically placed, or used to build log worm fence, to act as barriers to protect riparian and aquatic resources. The work 

would result in the following lengths of stream protected within each watershed:

 Cottonwood Creek (170102010706): 

o NF Cottonwood Creek – 1.0 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Peterson Creek (17010201704): 

o Dieders Fork – 0.3 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Dieders Fork – 0.5 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Clark Fork River – Caribou Creek (170102010702): 

o Orofino Creek – 0.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

o Tributary to Orofino Creek – 0.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Warm Springs (170102010401): 

o NF Perkins Gulch – 0.1 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Perkins Gulch – 0.4 miles of stream (tree felling)

 Dry Cottonwood Creek (170102010404): 

o NF Dry Cottonwood Creek 1.6 miles of stream (tree felling)

o NF Dry Cottonwood Creek 0.2 miles of stream (log worm fence)

o Tributary to SF Dry Cottonwood Creek - 0.2 miles of stream (tree felling)

While trees in riparian areas would be cut, the extent of harvest would not be extensive enough to cause substantive changes in 

stream temperatures. Data reported by Cristea and Janisch (2007; figure 11), indicates that in two different studies, reducing 

the buffer width of the vegetative canopy by 20 – 25 feet along streams for a length of 1500 feet resulted in temperature 

increases of only 0.2 to 0.45 oF. Certainly the number of trees needed for these treatments would not approximate a 

continuous 20 – 25 foot wide clearing. As such there should be no significant increase in stream temperatures. 

Even if temperature increases were expected where stream and riparian improvements are proposed, it’s doubtful they would 

substantially influence stream temperatures downstream. More recent research is suggesting that streams tend to buffer 

environmental influences in a way that promotes equilibrium and limits temperature shifts. 

Johnson (2004) work suggests the complexity of factors driving stream temperature precludes the presumption that 

temperature increases would be reflected downstream. This is reinforced by recognition of the influence of stream substrates 

and hyporheic flows (beneath and alongside the stream bed where there is mixing of shallow groundwater and surface water) 

on stream temperatures, and the potential for notable temperature declines to occur over relatively short distances. 

42
As such, the potential for these actions to cause increased stream temperatures is doubtful. The effects would be insignificant

and discountable within the Action Area. 

On the other hand, the protections provided to limit livestock impacts would promote natural recovery of the riparian 

vegetation and the channel over time. This would result in reductions in the width/depth ratios and increase shading. This 

would promote decreases in stream temperatures, although it may take many years for measurable change to occur. 

Stream Flow

Total ECA from the cumulative effects of beetle mortality and project implementation are summarized below in Table 9. The 

range of percent change in ECA ranges from 8 to 24% across 5 of the 6 watersheds; Based on the literature, there should be no

measurable increase in water yield. The cumulative change in ECA would be 28% in Clark Fork River – Sand Hollow. This 

suggests the possibility of a measurable increase in water yield. However, the very amount of Forested acres in this subwatershed (1.6 square miles) suggests even if a change occurred, it very well might be unmeasurable; and would be minor. 

Also all of the timber harvest proposed is in the Sand Hollow Creek drainage. This drainage is dry for miles above the Clark 

Fork River and there is no hydrologic connection. As such, the change in ECAs resulting from this project would be 

insignificant and discountable.

Table 9. Total ECA by subwatershed after implementation of EDLV Project.

Watershed Forested 

Acres

Revised 

Baseline 

ECA1

(Acres)

Percent 

ECA

Acres of 

Canopy 

Removal in 

Proposed 

Action

Total Acres of 

ECA with 

Project 

Implementation

Total 

Percent 

Change in 

ECA2

Cottonwood Creek 19293 3854 20% 781 4635 24%

Peterson Creek 8022 977 12% 485 1462 18%

Clark Fork River –

Caribou Creek 5422 609 11% 283 892 16%

Warm Springs 7939 371 5% 293 664 8%

Dry Cottonwood 

Creek 8522 1170 14% 349 1519 18%

Clark Fork River –

Sand Hollow 1063 150 14% 146 296 28%

1 – Represents Revised Baseline ECA acres prior to project implementation.

2 – Represents the percent of ECA with project implementation

43
Matrix Checklist

Table 10. Baseline Determinations for Clark Fork River –Deerlodge 5th Level Watershed

Diagnostic 

Pathways 

and 

Indicators

Indicator 6th Field HUC Baseline

Condition

Major 

Effects of 

Action

(Restore - 

Maintain -

Degrade)

Minor 

Effects 

of 

Action

(Restore - 

Maintain -

Degrade)

Comments

Road Actions (RA)

Culvert 

Improvements (CI)

Riparian 

Improvements (RI)

Large Wood 

Placement (LWD)

Local 

Population 

Characteristi

cs

Local Population 

Size

Cottonwood

Peterson FUR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou

Growth and 

Survival

Cottonwood

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou

Life History 

Diversity/ 

Isolation

Cottonwood

Peterson FUR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou

Persistence and 

Genetic Integrity

Cottonwood

Peterson FUR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou

Water 

Quality

Temperature

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Maintain RA; RI

Peterson FUR Maintain Maintain RA; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Maintain Ra; RI

Sediment

Cottonwood FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Chemical 

Contamination/ 

Nutrients

Cottonwood FA Maintain Maintain

Peterson FA Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FA Maintain Maintain

Habitat 

Access Physical Barriers

Cottonwood FA Maintain Restore CI;

Peterson FA Maintain Restore CI;

Clark Fork River - Caribou FA Maintain Maintain

Habitat 

Elements

Substrate 

Embeddedness

Cottonwood FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Large Woody 

Debris

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore LWD;

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FAR Maintain Maintain

Pool Frequency 

and Quality

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore LWD;

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FAR Maintain Maintain

Large Pools

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore LWD;

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FAR Maintain Maintain

Off Channel 

Habitat

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore LWD;

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FAR Maintain Maintain

Refugia

Cottonwood --- Maintain Maintain

Peterson --- Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou --- Maintain Maintain

Channel 

Condition 

and 

Dynamics

Wetted Width/ 

Max Depth Ratio

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Maintain RA; RI;

Streambank 

Condition

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

44
Diagnostic 

Pathways 

and 

Indicators

Indicator 6th Field HUC Baseline

Condition

Major 

Effects of 

Action

(Restore - 

Maintain -

Degrade)

Minor 

Effects 

of 

Action

(Restore - 

Maintain -

Degrade)

Comments

Road Actions (RA)

Culvert 

Improvements (CI)

Riparian 

Improvements (RI)

Large Wood 

Placement (LWD)

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Floodplain 

Connectivity

Cottonwood FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Flow and 

Hydrology

Change in Peak/ 

Base Flows

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI; 

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Drainage 

Network Increase

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA;

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA;

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA;

Watershed 

Conditions

Road Density and 

Location

Cottonwood FUR Maintain Restore RA;

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA;

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA;

Disturbance 

History

Cottonwood FA Maintain Maintain

Peterson FAR Maintain Maintain

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Maintain

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FAR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Disturbance 

Regime

Cottonwood FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI; LWD

Peterson FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Integration of 

Habitat 

Conditions

Cottonwood FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI; LWD

Peterson FUR Maintain Restore RA; CI; RI

Clark Fork River - Caribou FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Major effects – the action is likely to produce a change in one functional level from the baseline condition (e.g. FA to FAR). 

Minor effects - the action may result in an incremental or cumulative effect, but does not result in a functional change to the 

system (no change in functional level).

Table 11. Baseline Habitat Determinations for Clark Fork River –Warmsprings 5th Level Watershed

Diagnostic 

Pathways and 

Indicators

Indicator 6th Field HUC Baseline 

Condition

Major 

Effects of 

Action

Minor 

Effects of 

Action

Comments

Road Actions (RA)

Culvert 

Improvements (CI)

Riparian 

Improvements (RI)

Large Wood 

Placement (LWD)

Water 

Quality

Temperature

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Sediment

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Chemical 

Contamination/ 

Nutrients

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FA Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FA Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FA Maintain Maintain

Habitat 

Access Physical Barriers

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore CI

45
Diagnostic 

Pathways and 

Indicators

Indicator6th Field HUC Baseline 

Condition

Major 

Effects of 

Action

Minor 

Effects of 

Action

Comments

Road Actions (RA)

Culvert 

Improvements (CI)

Riparian 

Improvements (RI)

Large Wood 

Placement (LWD)

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore CI

Habitat 

Elements

Substrate 

Embeddedness

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Large Woody 

Debris

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Maintain

Pool Frequency 

and Quality

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Maintain

Large Pools

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Maintain

Off Channel 

Habitat

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Maintain

Refugia

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow --- Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek --- Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings --- Maintain Maintain

Channel 

Condition 

and 

Dynamics

Wetted Width/ 

Max Depth Ratio

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Streambank 

Condition

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Floodplain 

Connectivity

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Flow and 

Hydrology

Change in Peak/ 

Base Flows

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; 

Drainage 

Network Increase

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; 

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; 

Watershed 

Conditions

Road Density and 

Location

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; 

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; 

Disturbance 

History

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FAR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Maintain

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Maintain

Riparian 

Conservation 

Areas

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

46
Diagnostic 

Pathways and 

Indicators

Indicator 6th Field HUC Baseline 

Condition

Major 

Effects of 

Action

Minor 

Effects of 

Action

Comments

Road Actions (RA)

Culvert 

Improvements (CI)

Riparian 

Improvements (RI)

Large Wood 

Placement (LWD)

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Disturbance 

Regime

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Warmpsrings FAR Maintain Restore RA; RI;

Integration of 

Habitat 

Conditions

Clark Fork River – Sand 

Hollow FUR Maintain Maintain

Dry Cottonwood Creek FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Warmpsrings FUR Maintain Restore RA; RI; CI

Major effects – the action is likely to produce a change in one functional level from the baseline condition (e.g. FA to FAR). 

Minor effects - the action may result in an incremental or cumulative effect, but does not result in a functional change to the 

system (no change in functional level).

Compliance with Forest Plan

Forest Plan Standards

Standard 1: Riparian Conservation Area (RCA) -1 Any activity in RCAs shall be designed to enhance, restore, or maintain 

the physical and biological characteristics of the RCA by implementing the following requirements. 

1. Activities in RCAs, that meet or exceed RMOs, must be designed to maintain existing stream function.

2. Activities in RCAs that are not meeting RMOs shall include a restoration component, commensurate with the scope 

of the activity affecting the fishery, which trends towards accomplishing desired stream function, as part of the 

project.

3. Activities in RCAs shall not result in long-term degradation to aquatic conditions. Limited short-term effects from 

activities in the RCA may be acceptable when outweighed by the long-term benefits to the RCA and aquatic 

resources.

The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 1 because it proposes to 

• protect 5.5 miles of riparian and stream through riparian improvements; 

• Improve pools and stream habitat through 3.4 miles of large woody debris placement

• Upgrade 12 culverts to enhance hydrologic function and improve fish passage

• Implement road related actions that would

o Hydrologically disconnect 4.1 miles of stream 

o Decomission 2.17 miles of road in RCAs

o Obliterate 2.17 miles of road in RCAs

Standard 6: New management activities in Restoration Key Watersheds will be consistent with recovery of desired aquatic 

systems.

The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 6 because it proposes to”

• protect 0.5 miles of riparian and stream through riparian improvements; 

• Upgrade 2 culverts to enhance hydrologic function and improve fish passage

• Implement road related actions that would

o Hydrologically disconnect 1.1 miles of stream 

Standard 8: New projects will have a beneficial effect or no measurable negative effect on westslope cutthroat or bull trout in 

Fish Key Watersheds. Short term negative effects are acceptable if outweighed by long term benefits.

47
The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 8 because it proposes to 

• protect 1.0 miles of riparian and stream through riparian improvements; 

• Improve pools and stream habitat through 3.4 miles of large woody debris placement

• Upgrade 2 culverts to enhance hydrologic function and improve fish passage

• Implement road related actions that would

o Hydrologically disconnect 2.7miles of stream 

o Decomission 1.1 miles of road in RCAs

o Obliterate 0.6 miles of road in RCAs

o Convert Motorized system trail to non-motorized trail in 3.2 miles of RCA

Standard 9: Restoration projects should correct existing problems, not mitigate effects created by proposed activities

The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 9 because it proposes to 

• protect 5.5 miles of riparian and stream through riparian improvements; 

• Improve pools and stream habitat through 3.4 miles of large woody debris placement

• Upgrade 12 culverts to enhance hydrologic function and improve fish passage

• Implement road related actions that would

o Hydrologically disconnect 4.1 miles of stream 

o Decomission 2.17 miles of road in RCAs

o Obliterate 2.17 miles of road in RCAs

Much of the sediment related effects associated with log hauling will be mitigated through BMP applications

Standard 14: Grazing practices that prevent attainment of desired stream function, or are likely to adversely affect threatened 

or endangered species, or adversely impact sensitive species, are modified to attain desired stream function or population 

objectives

The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 14 because it proposes to 

• protect 5.5 miles of riparian and stream through riparian improvements; 

• develop Water Structures: Seven water structures would be developed to reduce riparian impacts from livestock.

Standard 21: Provide and maintain fish passage at new, replacement, and reconstructed road crossings of existing and 

potential fish-bearing streams, unless barriers are determined beneficial for native fish and/or sensitive aquatic species 

conservation

The EDLV project is in compliance with FP standard 21 because it proposes to 

• Upgrade 12 culverts to enhance hydrologic function and improve fish passage

Determination of Effects to Species

Determination - Dichotomous Key for making ESA Determinations of Effects

1) Are there any proposed/listed fish species and/or proposed designated critical habitat in the watershed or downstream from 

the watershed? 

Yes ......................go to 2

2) Will the proposed action(s) have any effect whatsoever on the species; designated or proposed critical habitat; seasonally or 

permanently occupied habitat; or unoccupied habitat necessary for the species' survival? 

Yes (May Affect).......................go to 3

48
3) Does the proposed action(s) have the potential to result in "take" of any proposed/listed fish species? 

No 

The determination is "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" for bull trout. The primary reason the NLAA determination 

is warranted is due to the potential for minor short term erosion and sedimentation and for longer term beneficial reductions in 

sediment delivery to streams; and based on the low probability that a bull trout may show up within 

Determination of Effects to Critical Habitat

There would be “No Effect” to bull trout Critical Habitat from implementation of the EDLV project. 

Documentation of Expected Incidental Take

There would be no expected “Incidental Take” of bull trout from implementation of the EDLV project. 

Summary

Based on the of the site specific enviromental baseline of bull trout habitat conditions associated with those indicators 

identified in the table above, this project will not result in a major change in any of the 19 indicators evaluated above. It will 

have minor effects on a substantial number of bull trout habitat indicators in most of the subwatersheds this project will occur 

within.

Signature

Listed Fish Species Determination of Effects Potential for Incidental Take?

Bull Trout NLAA No

Possible determination of effects on listed fish species:

NE = No Effect

NLAA = May Affect - Not Likely to Adversely Affect

LAA = May Affect - Likely to Adversely Affect

Prepared by: Jim Brammer

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest

Aquatic Program Manager

/s/ Jim Brammer January 22, 2015

49
References Cited

Beschta, R. L., R. E. Bilby, G. W. Brown, L. B. Holtby, and T. D. Hofstra. 1987. Stream temperature and aquatic habitat: 

Fisheries and forestry interactions. Pages 191-232 in E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy, editors. Streamside management: 

Forestry and fishery interactions. University of Washington, Institute of Forest Resources, Seattle, USA.

Cristea and Janisch, 2007: Modeling the effects of riparian buffer width on effective shade and stream temperature. 

Washington State, Dept of Ecology. Publication No.07-03-028

Dunham, J.B., and B.E. Rieman. 1999. Metapopulation structure of bull trout: influences of physical, biotic, and geometrical 

landscape characteristics. Ecological Applications 9: 642-655.

Fraley J.J. and B.B. Shepard. 1989. Life History, Ecology, and Population Status of Migratory Bull Trout in the Flathead Lake 

River System, Montana. Northwest Science. 63(4): 133-143.

Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J., Cissel, J.H., McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and 

Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW.GTR-760, Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station.

Goetz, F. 1989. Biology of the bull trout Salvelinus confluentus: a literature review. Willamette National Forest. Eugene, 

Oregon. 53 pages.

Jakober M.J. 1995. Autumn and Winter Movement and Habitat use of Resident Bull Trout and Westslope Cutthroat Trout in 

Montana. M.S. Theses, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana.

Johnson, S. L. (2004), Factors influencing stream temperature in small streams: Substrate effects and a shading experiment, 

Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, 57 (Suppl. 2), 30–39.

Knotek, W.L. 2011. Federal Aid Project Number F-113. Statewide Fisheries Management. Middle Clark Fork River. 

Project Number 3240.

Liermann, B., J. Lindstrom, and R. Kreiner. 2009. An assessment of fish populations and riparian habitat in tributaries of the 

Upper Clark Fork River Basin: Phase II. Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Missoula, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1995. Upper Clark Fork River drainage bull trout status report (including 

Rock Creek). Report prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996. Assessment of methods for removal or suppression of introduced fish 

to aid in bull trout recovery. Report prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1996b. The role of fish stocking in bull trout recovery. Report prepared for 

the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana.

MBTSG (Montana Bull Trout Scientific Group). 1998. The relationship between land management activities and habitat 

requirements of bull trout. Report prepared for the Montana Bull Trout Restoration Team, Helena, Montana.

McPhail, J.D., and J.S. Baxter. 1996. A review of bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) life history and habitat use in relation to 

compensation and improvement opportunities. Fisheries Management Report No. 104.

Overton, C.K., J.D. McIntyre, R. Armstrong, S.L. Whitwell, and K.A. Duncan. 1995. User’s guide to fish habitat: 

descriptions that represent natural conditions in the Salmon River basin, Idaho. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station, General Technical Report INT-GTR-322. Boise, Idaho. 

Pratt, K.L. 1992. A review of bull trout life history. Pages 5-9 in P.J. Howell, and D.V. Bucahnan, editors, Proceedings of 

the Gearhart Mountain bull trout workshop. Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, Corvallis.

50
Redding, T., R. Winkler, D. Spittlehouse, R. D. Moore, A. Wei and P. Teti. 2008. Mountain pine beetle and waershed 

hydrology: a synthesis focused on the Okanagan basin. One Watershed – One Water Conference Proceedings. pp 17-30

Rieman, B.E., and J.D. McIntyre. 1993. Demographic and habitat requirements for conservation of bull trout. USDA Forest 

Service, General Technical Report INT-302, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, Utah. 

Schmid, J.M, Mata, S.A and Schmidt, R.A. 1991. Bark Temperature patterns in ponderosa pine stands and their possible 

effects on mountain pine-beetle behavior. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. 21:1439-1446.

Shepard, B.B., K.L. Pratt, and P.J. Graham. 1984. Life histories of westslope cutthroat and bull trout in the Upper Flathead 

River Basin, Montana. Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena. 84 pages.

Sexauer, H.M., and P.W. James. 1997. A comparison of the microhabitat use by juvenile bull trout in four stream located in 

the eastern Cascades, Washington. Pages 361-370 in W.C. Mackay, M.K. Brewin, and M. Monita, editors. Trout Unlimited 

Canada, Bull Trout Task Force, Calgary, Alberta.

Spittlehouse, D. 2007. Climate change,impacts and adaptation scenarios. B.C.Ministry of Forests and Range, Victoria, B.C. 

URL: http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hts/Future_Forests/Scenarios.pdf

Swanberg, T. 1997. Movements of and habitat use by fluvial bull trout in the Blackfoot River, Montana. Transactions of the

American Fisheries Society 126: 735-746.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2009. Forest Plan, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest. United 

States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Dillon, Montana.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Draft: A framework to assist in making Endangered Species Act 

determinations of effect for individual or grouped actions at the bull trout subpopulation watershed scale. [Place of 

publication unknown]

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service. 2013. Conservation strategy for bull trout on USFS lands in western 

Montana. USDA Forest Service, Northern Region; USFWS, Montana field office; Lolo National Forest; Bitterroot National 

Forest; Flathead National Forest; Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest; Kootenai National Forest; Helena National Forest. 

617 pp.

Watson, G., and T.W. Hillman. 1997. Factors contributing to the distribution and abundance of bull trout: an investigation of 

ecologic hierarchies. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17: 237-252.

51
Appendix A

Table of WEPP Modeling for the EDLV Project

52
Summary of WEPP modeled sediment delivery related to log haul and road closure both during and after project implementation

6th Field HUC Stream Channel

No Action Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Current road 

sediment delivery 

(lbs/year)

Total road 

sediment delivery 

during 

implementation 

(lbs/year)1

Total road sediment 

delivery postimplementation 

(lbs/year)

Total road sediment 

delivery during 

implementation 

(lbs/year)1

Total road sediment 

delivery postimplementation 

(lbs/year)

Short term 

change in 

sediment 

during 

implementation 

(%)

Decrease in long 

term sediment 

post restoration 

(%)

Short term 

change in 

sediment 

during 

implementation 

(%)

Decrease in 

long term 

sediment post 

restoration (%)

Fred2

170102010706

Baggs 139 341 132 132 132 145% 5% -5% 5%

Cottonwood Creek 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0%

SF Cottonwood 

Creek 409 1,030 394 682 394 152% 4% 67% 4%

NF Cottonwood 

Creek 1,044 1,185 658 739 212 14% 37% -29% 80%

MF Cottonwood 

Creek 789 1,440 789 1,208 557 83% 0% 53% 29%

Spring Creek 132 348 132 348 132 164% 0% 164% 0%

Rocker Gulch 281 501 281 443 281 78% 0% 58% 0%

Subtotal: 2,794 4,845 2,386 3,552 1,708 73% 15% 27% 39%

Peterson2

1701020100704

Peterson 44 76 44 76 44 73% 0% 73% 0%

Jack Creek 394 697 263 799 365 77% 33% 103% 7%

Burnt Hollow Creek 394 481 263 612 394 22% 33% 55% 0%

Dieders Fork 474 706 210 649 153 49% 56% 37% 68%

Spring Creek 269 0 0 0 0 -100% 100% -100% 100%

Subtotal: 1,575 1,960 780 2,136 956 24% 50% 36% 39%

Orofino 

170102010702

Orofino Creek 1,552 1,797 856 1,797 860 16% 45% 16% 45%

Subtotal: 1552 1797 856 1797 860 16% 45% 16% 45%

Sand Hollow 

170102010407

Sand Hollow 331 560 331 560 292 69% 0% 69% 12%

Sand Creek 132 132 132 132 132 0% 0% 0% 0%

Subtotal: 463 692 463 692 424 49% 0% 49% 8%

Dry Cottonwood 

170102010404

Dry Cottonwood 1,678 3,232 1678 2,047 1678 93% 0% 22% 0%

NF Dry Cottonwood 966 1,998 828 1,587 555 107% 14% 64% 43%

SF Dry Cottonwood 2,522 4,099 2320 4,099 2036 63% 8% 63% 19%

Subtotal: 5,166 9,329 4,826 7,733 4,269 81% 7% 50% 17%

Girard Gulch2

1701020100401

NF Perkins Gulch 474 348 131 691 131 -27% 72% 46% 72%

Perkins Gulch 132 282 66 348 66 114% 50% 164% 50%

Girard Gulch 132 132 132 132 132 0% 0% 0% 0%

Subtotal: 738 762 329 1171 329 3% 55% 59% 55%

TOTAL: 12,288 19,385 9,640 17,081 8,546 58% 22% 39% 30%

1 Numbers reflect model WEPP outputs with no BMP preventive maintenance occurring

2 Numbers reflect the change in haul traffic from low to high and the completion of the identified mitigations in chapter two for the total road sediment delivery during implementation column for Alternatives two and three
Appendix B Maps

54
ââ

ââ â â

ââ

â

â

ââ âââ

ââââ ââ

ââ

ââ

ââ

ââ

âââââ

âââââââ âââ

ââ âââââ

ââââ â â

â ââ

â

â â

9317

UT06N08W21-01

UT06N08W28-03

78167

UR8-66

UR8-132 9322

UR8-63

5171

UR8-130

UR8-67

UR8-74

UR8-68

9318 9321

78166

82

UR8-61

UR8-131

UR8-134

UR8-72

9320

7 8 1 6 8

78265

9491

Cl ark Fork

River

CaribouCr

Orofino Cr

Cl ark Fork

R ive r

§ ̈¦90

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

âââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

 Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

 jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:64,100 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Clark Fork River-Caribou Creek_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Clark Fork River-Caribou Creek Subwatershed
. 

56
â

â

ââ â â

ââ

â

ââââââ

ââ

ââ

ââââ âââââ

âââââââ âââ

ââ ââââââ

â

ââââ

ââ

ââ

UT06N08W31-01

9411

78323

9455 78322

5157

MOREL RD

Lost

Cr

Sand

Hollow Cr

Sand Cr

Clark

Fork

Ri v

er

§ ̈¦90

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

âââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:66,400 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Clark Fork River-Sand Hollow_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Clark Fork River-Sand Hollow Subwatershed
âââ â

ââ

âââââ â

âââââââ â

âââ âââ

âââ

ââ â

ââââ

ââââ

âââ

â â ââ ââ

â â

â ââ

â

â â â â â â â â â â â â â â

â â â â â â

â â â

â

â

â â â â â â

â â â â â

â

â

â â

â â â â â â â

â â â â â â â

â

â

â â

â

â

â â â

â â â â

â

â â â â â â â â â â â â â â

â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â â

â

â

â

â â

â

â â â

â

â

â

â â

â â

â â â â

â â

â â

â â â â â â

â â â

â

â â

â â

â

â â

â â â â

â â â

!.

UT07N08W14-02

UR8-7 UR8-12

5175

9332

UR8-40

UR8-124

5182

19741

UR8-11

5174

UR8-3

UR8-29

UR8-6

UT07N08W11-01

UR8-31

UR8-5

19737

705

9361

19731

UR8-39

UR8-28

19740

UR8-16

5169

19739

19736

9338 9336

19885

8141

UR8-2

9335

19742

UR8-35

9363 5172

19738

UR8-1

UR8-9

9330

9358

5173

5007

9331

19871

19744

8442

93 44

9355

19743

UR8-17

8130

UT07N07W05-01 8047

8145

UR8-24

UR8-25

19745

9328

COTTONWOOD RAVINE RD

8046 8047

1518

8140

8139

1504 EMERY RD

Rocker

Gulch

Cottonwoo d Cr,N Fk

Cottonwood Cr, S Fk

Cotto nwood Cr, Middle Fk

Reese Anderson Cr

Cot tonwoodCr Baggs Cr

Clark Fo rk

R vi er

§ ̈¦90

Deer Lodge

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

âââââââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:112,500 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Cottonwood Creek_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Cottonwood Creek Subwatershed
â

â ââ â â

ââ

â

ââââ ââ

ââ ââââââââ

âââ ââââââââ

â â ââââ

ââ

âââ ââ

â âââ

ââââ

â

ââ â

â

âââ

âââ â

â

â

âââ ââ âââ â âââââ â

78321

8634

78070

78256

UR8-125 UR8-99

UR8-115

78260

UT05N08W07-02

78244

78251

78319

UR8-83

U R 8 - 85

UR8-100

UR8-126

608

UT05N08W02-01

UR8-102

78254

78258

78241

UR8-92

UT05N09W12-01

608

78 31 8

UR8-103

78252

UR8-108

78310

78250

608

78320

674

78255

78311

UR8-97

78253

9455 85

78242

Dr y Cottonwood

Cr, N Fk

Dry Cottonwood Cr, S Fk

Co

Dry

ttonwood Cr

Clark Fork

Rive r

§ ̈¦90

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

ââââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:78,600 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Dry Cottonwood Creek_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Dry Cottonwood Creek Subwatershed
ââââ

ââ ââ â

â ââ

ââââââ

ââââââ â

âââ âââ

âââââ

ââ

ââ

ââââ

ââ ââ

âââââ

â ââââââ

âââ

ââââ

â

ââ

âââ

âââââ

ââ ââ âââ

âââ

ââ ââ

ââ ââ

ââ

â

â â

!.

5158

19732

UR8-78

1516

UR8-43

19733

UT06N08W03-02

9491-B

UR8-45

19884

19729

19870

19734

9325

19727

9316

UR8-76

1516

19 7 3 0

UR8-51

UR8-44

UR8-34

UR8-75

UR8-54

19735

9326

UR8-32

UR8-77

9314

UR8-49

UR8-52

UR8-33

19726

19728

JOHNSON RD

5170

UT06N08W04-02

1516

1516

8518

1516

BURNT

HOLLOW RD

8503

REESE ANDERSON

CR RD

BOULDER RIVER ROAD

UR8-78

19869

Spring

Cr

Jack

Cr

Ho

Burnt

llow Cr

Peterson Cr

Clark Fork

River

§ ̈¦90

Deer Lodge

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

ââââââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:101,900 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Peterson Creek_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Peterson Creek Subwatershed
âââââââ

ââââââââ

âââââ âââ

ââ ââ

ââ

âââ

ââ âââââââ

â

ââââ

ââ

78315

UR8-120

78316

78309

9356

5164

UR8-107

5165

UT05N09W27-01

78306

5163

UT05N08W18-01

78307

UR8-118

78308

78 3 17

PERKINS

GULCH RD

MOREL

RD

UR8-127

Silver

Bow

Cr

Perkins

Gulch, N Fk

Perdee

Cr

Homeste

Cr

ad

Cook Cr

Whitcraft Cr

Gir

G

ard ulch

Perkins Gulch

C

al

rk

F

o

rk

Riv er

§ ̈¦90

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Perennial Stream

Roads / Motorized Trails

â â â â Nonmotorized Trails

Proposed Action Timber Units

Proposed Action Restoration Units

Proposed Action Haul Routes

ââââââ Proposed Action Temporary Routes

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

0 0.5 1 2 ± Miles

1:73,100 Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail_Warm Springs_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_DocMap_HucsDetail..mxd

!.!.

Deer

Lodge

INDEX

EDLV Project - Warm Springs Subwatershed
k

k

k

k

k

k

k

E

k

kk

k

!.

Dry Cottonwood Creek

Warm Springs

("Girard Gulch" Restoration Key Watershed)

Clark Fork River-Sand

Hollow

Clark Fork River-Caribou Creek

Peterson

Creek

Cottonwood Creek

("Fred" Fish Key Watershed)

§ ̈¦90

Mill

Cr

Rocker

Gulch

Johnson

Cr

Spring

Cr

Hensley Gulch

Clark Fork River

Perkins

Gulch, N Fk

Cottonwo od

Cr, N Fk

Warm Springs Cr

Cottonwood Cr, S Fk

Perdee

Cr

Jack

Cr

Homestead

Cr

Sand Ho llow Cr DryC ottonwoo

Cr, N

d

Fk

Cotton w M

ood Cr,

idd le Fk

Dry C ottonwo

Cr, S od Fk

Cook Cr

Sand Cr

Reese Anderson Cr

Ho

Burnt

llow Cr

Cot

Dry

tonwood Cr

Whitcraft

Cr

Girard

Gulch Perkins Gulch

Caribou

Cr

Si vl er BowC r

Orofino

Cr

Cottonwood Cr

Ba ggs Cr

Peterson

Cr

C la rk Fork

Ri v er

Deer Lodge

Legend

Project Boundary

Subwatershed Boundary

Forest Plan Key Watersheds

Fisheries

Restoration

Primary Road

Perennial Stream

Proposed Action Riparian Improvements

k Culvert Retrofit / Replacement

E Culvert Removal

104 Acres - Riparian Tree Felling

84 Acres - Riparian LWD Enhancement

26 Acres - Log Worm Fencing

The USDA Forest Service manages

this data for planning purposes, not

necessarily for actual on the ground

implementation. The USFS is in no

way condoning or endorsing the

application of this data for any given

purpose. It is the sole responsibility

of the user to determine whether or

not the data is suitable for the intended

purpose. It is also the obligation of the

user to apply this data in an appropriate

and conscientious manner. The USFS

provides no warranty, nor accepts any

liability occurring from any incomplete

or misleading use of this data.

EDLV Project

Proposed Action

Aquatic Improvements

Beaverhead-Deerlodge NF

jto 1/13/2015

This map replaces all versions of

same title printed with prior dates.

±

0 0.5 1 2

Miles

1:150,000

Map PDF Location: ......\Project\EastDeerLodgeValley\GIS\Product\BTBA_DocMaps\BT_BA_Docmap_RipImprovements_8x11.pdf

Map MXD Location: ......\Project\EastDeerlodgeValley\GIS\MXD\BT_BA_Docmap_RipImprovements.mxd