The History and Status of Fishes in the Little Lost River Drainage, Idaho

Bart L. Gamett

May 1999

Lost River Ranger District Upper Snake Region Idaho Falls District Salmon-Challis National Forest Idaho Department of Fish and Game Bureau of Land Management Sagewillow, Inc.

F'ORWARD AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This document representsthe culmination of a cooperative effort by several agenciesand individuals over a sevenyear period. The field work was fundedby the U.S. ForestService, Bureau of Land Managemen! and Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The U.S. Forest Service, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Bureau of Land Management,and Idaho Division of Environmental Quality provided personnel and equipment for field work. The data analysis and report preparationwas funded by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Forest Service. Additional funding was provided by Sagewillow, Inc, a landowner in the Little Lost River drainage. Mike Foster,Lost River RangerDistrict, Salmonand Challis National Forests;Bob Martin, Upper SnakeRegion, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Mark Gamblin, Upper SnakeRegion, Idaho Department of Fish and Game; Pat Koelsch, Idaho Falls District, Bureau of Land Management; and Leon Jadlowski, Salmon and Challis National Forests each provided helpful reviews of the manuscript. Without this cooperative effort, this study and report would not have been possible.

The authorwishes to expressappreciation to the following individuals who assistedin the completion ofthis project.

USDA Forest Service

Daryl Moss - assistingwith survey methodology and field work Jeff Knisely - assistingwith survey methodology, field work, and report preparation Brett High - assistingwith survey methodology,field work, report preparation,data analysis, and conducting the aging and maturity study Mike Foster, Leon Jadlowski, and Jan Pisano - assistingwith survey methodology Melissa Abbott - report preparation Ryan Spencer and Mitch Day - assistingwith preparation of GIS coveragesand maps and assisting with field work Alyce Clark,LindaFoster, and Brad Gamett - assistingwith report preparationand field work Beoky Lish, Will Marcroft, Dan Cunderman,Rosa Erickson, Marie Shaffer, Scott Sayer,Roy Churchwell, Dave Fallis, Cody Schmidt, Chris Schmidq Dave Kearns, Karen Place, Jake Lewis, Brian O'Hearn, Shawn Childs, Kam Nelson, Brett High, Mitch Day, Brett Gamett, Connie Hurst, Rachel Pieterick, and Randy Schluter - assistingwith field work

Idaho Department of Fish and Game

Bob Martin - assistingwith report preparation Mark Gamblin - assistingwith survey methodology and providing accessto file data Bruce Rich - assistingwith survey methodology and field work Beoky Lish - assistingwith report preparation Sharon Clark - conducting stocking records research Crystal Christensen- technical typing

USDI Bureau of Land Management

Pat Koelsch - providing technical assistance,access to file data, and assistingwith field work Dan Kotansky - assistingwith field work Cindy Weston - providing accessto file data Idaho State Division of Environmental Qualitv

DonZaroban - identification of sculpin Tom Herron - technical assistanceand assistancewith field work Sheryl Hill - assistingwith field work

Idaho State Universitv

Dr. Jack Griffith - technical assistanceand assistancewith field work

Volunteers

Charmaine Gamett - assistingwith field work, data analysis,and report preparation Ashley Waddoups - report preparation Paula Gamett - historical research Heather Gamett - report preparation TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT.... 1

INTRODUCTION

STUDY AREA 2 Location and Setting ) Climate 2 Lands and Administration 4 Methods 5

FINDINGS AND DISCUS SION 8 Part 1: History and Overview 8 Water 8 Streams 8 Disoharge 8 Temperatures.... 8 Lakes and Reservoirs . . . 8 1a SpeciesPresent IJ SpeciesOrigin t3 Previous Work . 15 Fishery ManagementHistorY 16 Habitat ManagementHistory 18 Part2: Species 18 Introduction 18 Bull Trout 20 Distribution 20 HistoricDistribution 2A Life History Strategies 22 Diet . 24 Growth 24 SexualMaturity 25 Spawning,Incubation, and Rearing 25 HabitatCharacteristics. . . 26 PopulationTrend 30 aa Threatsto Bull Trout Populations -lJ aa StreamTemperature . . . . JJ Hybridization,Competition, and Predation by Exotic Brook Trout . . . . 34 Disruptionof MigratoryCoridors 35 LossThrough Irrigation Ditches 36 Artifi cial MigrationBarriers 36 AnglerHarvest 36 Lossof Coverand Habitat Complexity 36 Sediment 37 an Brook Trout . JI Distribution 37 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Maturity ...... 39 Growth ...... 39 RainbowTrout...... 39 Distribution ....39 Growth ...... 42 ShortheadSculpin .....43 CutthroatTrout...... 43 Guppy,Green Swordtail, Amelanic Convict Cichlids, Mozambique Tilapia, andGoldfish.... 47 Brown Trout . A1 GoldenTrout . 47 MountainWhitefish 48 Grayling 48 Part3: Subdrainages. . . . 48 Introduction 48 AspenUreeK 48 BadgerCreek 49 BarneyCreek (Including Barney Hot Springs) . ' 50 BarneyHot Springs 50 BasinCreek 50 BasingerCanyon 52 BearCanyon 52 BearCreek 52 Bell MountainCreek (Basinger Canyon) 53 Big Creek 53 Big SpringsCreek 55 BirchBasin 56 BirdCanyon.... 56 Black Canyon 56 BlackCreek 56 Black Tail Canyon 57 BoulderCreek and Fowler Springs 57 BriggsCanyon 57 BuokCanyon.... 57 Bull Creek 57 BuntingCanyon 58 Cabin Fork . 58 CampCreek (Sawmill Canyon) 58 CampCreek (Southern Lemhi MountainRange) 59 CedarRun Canyonand Mud Spring 59 CedarvilleCanyon (including North Fork andCabin Fork) ' 60 Chicken Creek . . 60 Coal Creek 60 Corral CanyonCreek 6I CorralCreek 6l TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Cub Canyon 61 Deep Creek 6l Deer Creek (seealso Deer Creek, North Fork; Deer Creek, South Fork) 6I Deer Creek, North Fork . 62 Deer Creek, South Fork . 64 Dry Creek 64 EastCanyon.... 66 Eightmile Canyon (including Right and Left forks) 66 Fallert Springs 67 Fallert Springs Creek 67 Firebox Creek 67 Fowler Springs 68 Garfield Creek 68 Hawley Canyon 68 Hawley Creek 68 HellCanyon.... 69 Hilts Creek 69 Horse Creek 69 HorseLake Creek 70 HorsethiefCanyon Creek 70 HurstCanvon... 70 Iron Creek 7l JacksonCreek 72 Jumpoff Canyon. . . 72 Little Lost River, Mainstem (including Sawmill Creek) 72 Long Lost Creek 78 Magpie Springs 78 Mahogany Creek 78 Main Fork Little Lost River . 79 MassacreCreek 79 Meadow Creek 79 Middle Canyon 80 Mill Creek 80 Moffett Creek (including Moffett Springs) 8l Moffett Springs 81 Moonshine Creek 82 Mormon Gulch 82 MudSprings.... 82 North Creek 82 North Fork (CedarvilleCanyon) ....., 83 Pine Creek 83 QuigleyCreek 83 Redrock Creek 84 RockyRunCreek(SunnyBarCanyon)...... 85 SandsCanvon ...'....85

llt TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

SandsCreek 85 Sawmill Canyon 85 SawmillCreek 85 Sixmile Canyon 86 SlideCreek 86 SmithieFork 86 SouthCreek 88 SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon) 89 SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon), North Fork . 89 SquawCreek (Wet Creek) . . 90 SummerhouseCanyon 9l SummitCreek 92 SunnyBar Canyon 94 Taylor Canyon 94 TimberCreek 94 UncleIke Creek 95 Van Dorn Canyon 96 Warm Creek 96 Warm SpringsCreek 97 Wet Creek 97 WilliamsCreek t02 Y Springs r03 UnnamedTributary (1 km southof Warm Creek) 103 Otherunnameddrainages. . . . 103 Part4: Lakesand Reservoirs . . . 103 Introduction ... 103 Big Creek i04 Lower Big Creek Lake (beaver pond) r04 Big CreekLake#2 104 Dry Creek 104 Dry CreekReservoir 104 Copperlake. ... '... 105 Dry CreekPond 105 Dry CreekLake #1 Swauger Lake #l 105 SwaugerLake#2 106 Swauger Lake#3 106 Dry Creek Lake#2 106 Dry Creek Lake#3 r07 Dry Creek Lake#A 107 HorseLake Creek 107 Horselake.... 107 Long Lost Creek r07 Shadow Lake #1 (lower) r07 Shadow Lake #2 (upper) 107 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

LongLost Creek Lake 108 Mill Creek 108 Mill CreekLake . 108 SummitCreek ...... 109 SummitCreek Reservoir 109 wet creek 109 NolanLake . 109

RECOMMENDATIONS 110 HabitatManage ll0 Fish Manageme i11 Education 111

LITERATURE CITED 1t2

APPENDICES t16

LIST OF TABLDS

Table1. Meanyearly and monthly temperature and precipitation for Howe,Idaho (re6r- 1990). Table2. Mean and annual discharges(m3/s) for Little Lost River (adaptedfrom Stone et al. 1993). I I Table3. Summaryof watersand species stocked in the Little Lost River drainage(adapted from IdahoDepartment of Fish andGame stocking records) l7 Table4. Mean anglercatch rates and species composition for the Little Lost River drainage. . . . . 18 Table5. Comparisonof bull trout lengthsat annulusfrom the Little Lost River to other systems 24 Table6. Comparisonof bull trout densitiesand habitat characteristics from SmithieFork (relativelyhigh density)and Timber Creek (relatively low density) 27 Table7. Relationshipbetween trout species composition (1995, 1996, or 1997)and maximum summerstream temperature in 1997in the mainstemof the Little Lost River . 29 Table8. Relationshipbetween trout species composition (1995, 1996, ot 1997)and maximum summerstream temperature in 1997in Wet Creek 29 Table9. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost River betweenthe Forest boundaryand SummitCreek between 1984 and 1997 (Elle et al. 1987,Corsi and Elle 1989,present study) )z Table10. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Litfle Lost River from the Forestboundary to SmithieFork between1987 and 1997 (Corsi and Elle 1989,present study) )z Table11. Comparisonof brooktrout lengthsat annulusfrom the Little Lost River drainage with brook trout from other systems . . . . 40 Table12. Comparisonof rainbowtrout lengthsat annulusfrom the Little Lost River drainage with rainbowtrout of othersystems Aa TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Table13. Summary of sculpin collections from the Little Lost River drainage . . . . . 44 Table14. Summary of electrofishing data from Badger Creek . . . " . . 49 Table15. Summaryof electrofishingdatafrom Basin Creek ' . " . . . . 51 Table16. Habitat characteristicsof Basin Creek between Wet Creek and Pine Creek in 1997 (Forest Service R1/R4 stream habitx inventory) . . . 5l Tablei7. Summary of electrofishing data from Bear Creek . . 52 Table18. Habitat characteristicsof the lower 1.5 km of Bear Creek in 1994 (Forest Service R1iR4 stream habitat inventory) . . . 53 'Iable 19. Summary of electrofishingdatafrom Big Creek . . . 54 Table20. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromBigSpringsCreek ...... 56 Table2l. Summary of electrofishing datafrom Bunting Canyon Creek . . . . 58 Table22. Summary of electrofishing dxa from Camp Creek (Sawmill Canyon) . . . . 59 Table23. Summary of electrofishing data from Coal Creek . . 60 Table24. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromDeerCreek '... ' '. ' 63 Table25. Summary of electrofishing data from Deer Creek, North Fork . . . ' 64 Table26. Summary of electrofishing data from Deer Creek, South Fork . . . . 64 Table27. Summary of electrofishing data from Dry Creek ' . ' 66 Table28. Summary of electrofishing data from Fallerf Springs Creek . ' . . . . 67 Table29. Summary of electrofishing data from Firebox Creek . . - . . 68 Table30. Summary of electrofishing data from Hawley Creek . . . . . 69 Table31. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromHorseCreek . -..... 70 Table32. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromlronCreek .... '... 7l Table33. Summary of electrofishing data from JacksonCreek . . . . . 72 Table34. Summary of electrofishing data from mainstem Little Lost River (including Sawmill Creek) " - 74 Table35. Summary of electrofltshingdata from MassacreCreek . . . . 79 Table36. Summary of electrofishing datafrom an unnamedtributary to Meadow Creek . . . 80 Table37. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromMill Creek ... '.... 81 Table38. SummaryofelectrofishingdatafromNorthCreek .... '.. 83 Table39. Summary of electrofishing data from Quigley Creek . . . . . 84 Table40. Summary of electrofishing data from Redrock Creek . . . . . 84 Table41. Summary of electrofishing data from Slide Creek . ' 86 Table42. Summary of electrofishing data from Smithie Fork ...... 87 Table43. Summaryofelectrofishingdatafrom SouthCreek ... ' '.. 88 Table44. Summaryofelectrofishingdatafrom SquawCreek(SawmillCanyondrainage)...... 89 Table45. Summary of electrofishing data from Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon), North Fork . . . . . 90 Table46. Summary of elecffofishing data from Squaw Creek (Wet Creek) ' . . . . 91 Table47. Mean trout densities for three grazed (untreated) and three ungrazedsections (treated) of Summit Creek in 1979(adapted from Keller and Burnham 1982) ' . ' " . 93 Table48, Summary of electrofishing data from Summit Creek . ' . . . 93 Table49. Summary of electrofishing data from Timber Creek ...... 95 q6 Table50. Summary of electrofishing data from Uncle Ike Creek . - . - Table51. Summary of electrofishing data from Warm Creek " ' . . . . 97 Table52. Summary of electrofishing data from Warm Springs Creek . . . . - ' 97 Table53. Summary of electrofishing data from Wet Creek . ' 99

VI TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont.)

Table 54. Summary of electrofishing data from an unnamedtributary to Wet Creek 102 Table 55. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Williams Creek 103

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure1. ThelittlelostRiverdrainage .....3 Figure2. Sitessampled in the Little Lost River drainageduring the presentstudy to obtain fishpopulationdata ...... 9 Figure3. Perennialstreams, intermittent streams, and lakes and reservoirs in the Little Lost River drainageas determined from the presentstudy . 10 Figure4. Temperaturesites monitored in the Little Lost River drainagein 1997 12 Figure5. Currentdistribution of all salmonidsin the Little Lost River drainage(present study) . . 19 Figure6. Currentdistribution of bull trout in the Little Lost River drainage(present study) ...... 2l Figure7. Relationshipbetween trout species composition (1995, 1996, or 1997)and maximum summerstreamtemperatureinl997 inthemainstemoftheLittleLostRiver...... 28 Figure8. Relationshipbetween trout species composition (1995, 7996, or 7997)and maximum summerstream temperature inl997 in Wet Creek . . . . ' . 28 Figure9. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost River between1984 and 1997 (Elle et al. 1987,Corsi and Elle 1989,present study) . . . . 31 Figure10. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost River between7987 and 1997 (Elle et al. 7987,Corsi and Elle 1989,present study) ' ' . . 31 Figure1 1. Currentdistribution of brooktrout in the Little Lost River drainage(present study) . . . . 38 Figure12. Currentdistribution of rainbowtrout in the Little Lost River drainage(present study,Gamettlgg0a) .....41 Figure13. Museumspecimen collection sites for shortheadsculpin in the Little Lost River drainage(see Appendix A for all sitesin which sculpinwere found during the presentstudy) '..'.45 Figure14. Distributionof cutthroattrout, grayling,guPPY, green swordtail, amelanic convict cichlid, goldfish(no longerpresent), andMozambique tilapia in the Little Lost Riverdrainage(presentstudyandCourtenayetal.l9ST) ..'.... 46

vil ABSTRACT

Datarelating to fish populationsin the Little Lost River drainagewere gatheredbetween 1992 and 1999.During this time, fish populationdata were gatheredfrom l7 7 streamsections. One-hundred+hirty-five siteswere sampledby eleotrofishing,27 by visual observation,6 by a combinationof electrofishingand visual observation, 2 by hook and line, and 1 by snorkeling. Four-hundred-ninety-onekm of perennial stream,40 km of perennial stream/marsh,2,453 km of intermittent stream, 17 lakes, I reservoir, 3 dysfunctional reservoirs, and several private ponds were found in the drainage.

Literature reviews and field work indioate 1l speciesof fish and 2 hybrids have beendocumented in the Little Lost River drainage. These include bull trout Salvelinus confluentusobrook trout Salvelinus fontinalis,rainbowtrout Ancorhynchusmykiss,cutthroattrout Oncorhynchus clarki,rainbow troutx cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus mykiss x Oncorhynchus clarki, brook trout x bull trout Salvelinusfontinalis x Salvelinus confluentus,graylingThymallus sp., shortheadsculpin Cottuscoffisus, guppy Poecilia reticulata, green swordtail Xiphophorus helleri, amelanic convict cichlid Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum,Mozambique tilapia Tilapia mossambica,and goldfish Carassiusauratus. Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni have not been found in fish collections completedin the drainage. However, local residentsindicate whitefish were present in the Little Lost River in the early 1900's. Although brown trout Salmo truttahave not been documentedin the basin, they have reportedly been caught by anglers in the lower end of the drainage. A single introduction of golden trout Oncorhynchusaguabonita did not establisha population.

Although bull trout are widely distributed in the drainage,their distribution is fragmented. Data collected duringthe presentstudy indicatebull trout occupy approximately 164km of stream andarethe only salmonid presentin approxim ately32 km of stream. Both resident and fluvial populations are found in the drainage. Threatsto bull trout populationsin the drainageinclude high streamtemperatures; hybridization, competition, and predationby exotic brook trout; disruption of migratory corridors; sedimen! loss through irrigation ditches; artificialmigration barriers; angler harvest; and loss of cover andhabitat complexity.

Rainbow trout are the most widely distributed fish speciesand were found in most streamsin the drainage. Although brook trout arewidely distributedin the drainage,they are only abundantin a few stream reaches. Although cutthroattrout arepresent in mountain lakes,only 2 fish capturedfrom streamsduring the study appearedto be pure cutthroat trout.

The shortheadsculpin appearsto be the only sculpin speciespresent in the drainage. Itappearc some factor or combination of factors (possibly high stream gradient) is limiting their distribution. With the exception of Williams Creek and Horse Creek, shortheadsculpin were absentfrom streamsnot currently oonnectedto the drainagenet. INTRODUCTION

In the past,there has beena lack of datarelating to fish populationsin the Little Lost River drainage. Although some researchhas been conducted,it has generally focused on streamsthatare important recreational fisheries, and little or no data exist for most small tributary streams. Furthermore,much of the information that has been gathered is unpublished and exists only in an office file format. This makes it generally unavailableto others involved in the managementof the drainage. The lack and unavailability of data has made the development of fish managementplans difficult. The purpose of this document is to rectify this problem by presentinga completedescription of the history and statusof fish populations in the Little Lost River drainage in one publication so that information is easily accessibleto resourcemanagers.

STUDY AREA

Location and Setting

The study areaincludes the entire Little Lost River drainage(Figure l). The Little Lost River is one of severalisolated streams located along the northernrim ofthe SnakeRiver basinin southeasternIdaho. This group of streams,which collectively includesBig Lost River,Little Lost River, Birch Creek,Medicine Lodge Creek, Beaver Creek, and CamasCreek, originates in the mountainsof southeasternand south central Idaho. While these streamsare located within the SnakeRiver Basin, the immense lava formations ofthe upper Snake River Plain prevent them from forming an overland oonnectionwith other streamsin the basin. Rather,they sink into the lava along the northern edge of the Snake River Plain. Henoe, these streams have been collectively termed the Sinks Drainagesor Lost Streams. Specifrcally,the Little Lost River originates in the Lost River and Lemhi mountain ranges,and flows in a southeasterlydirection where it sinks (when undiverted) into the lava southeastofthe town of Howe. The drainagecovers approximately 2,520 km2. Elevation ranges from 1.456 m at the Little Lost River Sinks to 3,718 m at the summit of Diamond Peak in the Lemhi Mountains.

During the Pleistocene,increased stream flows from the Lost Streamscombined to form Lake Terreton (Pierceand Scott 1982). This would likely have beenthe most recentconnection the Little Lost River hashad with other streams. However, streamsmay have been transferred into the Little Lost River drainage via headwater stream capture since the existenceof Lake Terreton.

Complete descriptions of the geology of the Little Lost River drainagewere made by Rember and Bennett (I979aand 1979b)and Bond (197S). Mundorff et al. (1963) provided an extensivedescription of the hydrology of the basin.

Climate

The climate of the drainageis relatively cool and dry. Annual precipitationvaries from less than25 cm at the lower end of the valley near Howe, to over 100 cm in the headwatersof Dry Creek and Wet Creek in the Lost River Mountains. Mean annualprecipitation at Howe is23.9 cm, while mean annualtemperature is 6.3"C (Table 1). Temperaturesat Howe rangefrom -39"C to 39"C. Areaof Detail N

OBoise O ldahoFalls

Clark OCountr

.s* bd

6 Mackay

Scale 5 0 5 l0Kilometers ffi Legend al LakeJReservoir .\./' Perennialstroam \-''' lntemittst StGam M0nslip @h*$de E tuedof t4d lbwd mtueorltro O Moore f--- l Pffi ffimpm*r*s Fcounty Ebundari6 3

Figure L. The Little l,ost River drainage. Table l, Mean yearly and monthly temperatureand precipitationfor Howe, Idaho (1961 - 1990).

Month MeanTemperature ("C) Mean Precipitation (cm) January 1.7 February -4.7 1.6 March 0.9 1.4 April 7.2 1.5 May 12.0 2.9 June 16.3 3.4 July 20.3 1.9 August 19.1 2.4 September 13.4 1.7 October 7.2 1.3 November -0.6 2.0 December -7.3 2.1

Yearly 6.3 23.9

Lands and Administration

The Little Lost River drainage is comprised of Forest Sewice, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Department of Energy (Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory), Stateof Idaho, andpivate lands (Figure 1). All Forest Servicelands are managedby the Lost River RangerDistrict of the Salmon and Challis National Forests. The Idaho Falls BLM District managesmost of the BLM land in the drainage;the Salmon Disfict managesthose BLM lands in the extreme upper portion of the drainage. The extreme southem tip of thc drainage is managedby the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. Private land in the drainageis limited and is confinedprimarily to agricultural land at the lower end of the valley and along the mainstem of the river. Lands belonging to the stateof Idaho are scatteredthroughout the drainage. The entire drainage is within the jurisdiction of the Upper SnakeRegion of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game. The drainage includes portions of Butte, Custer, Lemhi, and Clark counties. Methods

This report was compiled from existing dataand datagatheredthrough field work completedbetween 1992 and 1999. Reviervsof all availableoffice file datawere madeby the author at the Idaho Departmentof Fish and GameUpper SnakeRegion office in Idaho Falls, Idaho,and the U.S. ForestService office in Mackay, Idaho. Pat Koelsch, a fisheriesbiologist at the BLM distriot office in Idaho Falls, provided pertinentdata from that office. Cindy Weston, a fisheriesbiologist at the BLM office in Salmon,provided pertinent information from that office. Literature searcheswere conductedat the Eli M. Obler Library at Idaho StateUniversity Lost Rivers Community Library in Arco, Idaho; and over the Internet. Severalinterviews with biologists, land managers,and local residentswere also made. All of these data were reviewed and significant information included in this report. Referencesto office file data are abbreviatedas follows: Lost River RangerDistrict, Salmonand Challis National Forests,Mackay, Idaho: LRRD f/re data;UpperSnake Region, Idaho Department of Fish and Game,Idaho Falls, Idaho: USR file data;Idaho Falls District, Bureauof Land Managemen! Idaho Falls,Idaho: IFD file data. Fish stockinginformation was compiled from Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game stocking records, All location nameswere taken from the 1986 edition of the Challis National Forest map. However, Sawmill Creek was treated as part of the mainstem of the Little Lost River.

Field work to obtain current fish population datawas conductedby the Lost River RangerDistrict of the Salmon and Challis National Forests and the Idaho Falls District of the Bureau of Land Management between 1992 and 1997. Dwing this period the entire Little Lost River basin was inventoried.

Fish distribution was ascertainedby first determiningthe presenceor absenceof a perennial stream within a subdrainage.This was done through field evaluationsandlor reviews of aerial photographs.After some experimentationand field verification, it becameclear that in most areasaerial photographs could be used to determinethe presenceand extent of perennialstreams even if the stream was less than 0.5 m wide. This was due primarily to the arid nature of the drainage,which causesa sharp contrast between riparian vegetationcharacteristics ofperennial streamsand surroundingvegetation. Ifno perennialstream was present, the subdrainagewas generally determinedto be fishless and was given no further consideration.

Each perennial streamwas then sampledin one or more locationsto determine if fish were present. This was generally accomplishedthrough electrofishing. A representativesegment of a stream reach was selectedand electrofished to determine if fish were present. When fish were not found, at least one other segment of the stream or stream reach was generally electrofishedto confirm the absenceof fish if it was believedthe streamcould supportfish. The absenceof fish was generallyfurther confirmedby a visual survey' On a few extrernely small streams,the absenceof fish was determined by visual survey only. However, this was only done when the presenceof fish was unlikely and confidencewas high any fish present would be detected. If no fish were found by thesemethods, the stream or stream reach was consideredfishless. The general location and approximatelength of eachsampling site in which no fish were found was recorded for future reference.

Once fish were located, or they were already known to exist in a certain reach, the population was assessedat one of two levels. Both levels involved selecting and sampling a transect representativeof the stream reach. If a reach was sampledby Corsi and Elle (1989) in 7987,the samereaoh was generally resampled. While the exact location of someof the 1987sites were not relocated,the sitessampled during the presentstudy should be in the samevicinity. The first samplinglevel involved making a single electrofishing passto determinespecies composition and length frequency. The secondsampling level involved making 2 io 4 sampling passesto determinespecies composition, length frequency,and density. The generallocations of single passtransects were recordedfor future reference.The exactlocations of multiple passtransects were describedin detail, mapped, andlorphotographed so that they could be repeatedin the future. The latitude and longitude of some of these sites were also obtained with a Global Positioning System. The detailed descriptionsofthe transectssampled between 1992 and 1994 areon file at the Idaho Falls BLM District, 1405 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho, 83401,(208) 524-'7500. The detaileddescriptions of the transects sampledbetwe en 1995 and 1997are on file (file designation2620)at the Lost River RangerDistrict, P.O. Box 507,Mackay, Idaho, 8325I, (208) 588-2224. A generaldescription of eachtransect is provided in this report.

Fish sampling involved using a backpack mounted electroshockingunit powered by a backpack mounted generator. One person caried and operatedthe electrofishing unit. Fish were netted by i to 4 personneldepending on streamsize. Fish collectedwere held in bucketsuntil samplingwas completed. However, if extremely large numbersof fish were captured,some fish were releasedbelow the transectprior to the completion of sampling. When this occurred, it was done in a manner that prevented fish from re- entering the transect prior to the completion of sampling. Fish were anesthetizedwith tricaine methane- sulfonate (MS-222). Speciesand total length were determined and recorded. Forest Service personnel recordedthe length and speciesfor all fish captured. However, in some streamsthat were sampledbetween 1992 and l994,theBLM only notedthe presenceof fish smallerthan 100mm and did not individually record their lengths. Length frequency distributionswere developedusing all fish captured,or in the case of some sites sampledby the BLM, all fish reported. Sincethe BLM did not always record the individual lengths of fish smaller than 100 mm, the presenceof young-of-the-yearfish is not always reflected in the length frequency distributions for sites sampledbetween 1992 and 1994. Snorkelingwas usedto assessspeoies presence and composition in one large beaverpond. Hook and line samplingwas usedto assessspecies presence and composition in another beaver pond and one isolated stream.

Population estimateswere madeusing the two passand multiple passmethods described by Platts et al. (1983). This methodwas utilizedto provide comparabilitywith previouslycollected data. Becausethe BLM did not always attemptto capturefish under 100mm, populationestimates for reachessampled between 1992 and 1994 arefor fish 100 mm and larger. All other population estimatesare for fish 70 mm and larger. After an evaluationo f the dataand discussion with other biologists,it becameclear that determiningthe length of age one fish for every site would be very subjectiveand prone to error due to the tremendousdifferences in growth between sites and species. Therefore, a standardof 70 mm was set. This standardsize, which should generally reflect age one and older fish, will also allow for easein duplicating the study. Density estimateswere made by dividing the population estimateby the surfacearea of the transect. Surface area of the transect was calculated by multiplying the mean width by the length of the transect.

Brook trout and bull hout were identified using the criteria describedby Thurow (1994). Adult and subadultbrook trout and bull trout were differentiated by the presenceor absenceof black markings on the dorsal fin. When a fish was too small to have thesemarkings, the presence/absenceof a dark band through the nostrils and the shapeof par marks were usedas the criteria. Hybrids were determined by the presence of phenotypic characteristicsunique only to brook trout and only to bull trout existing on an individual fish.

Sculpin speciespresence was determinedby sampling efforts, specimencollection, and referenceto other literature. Due to the difficulty of identi$'ing sculpin to the specieslevel, 45 voucher specimenswere collected and preserved from 8 key locations in the drainage during the present study. These fish were identified by Don Zaroban at Albertson's College of Idaho. These specimensare now in the Albertson's College of Idaho fish collection. No attemptwas madeto determinea populationestimate for sculpin. Sculpin distribution was determinedby noting the presenceor absenceof sculpin at eachsite sampled. Since only I sculpin specieswas found at the 8 sites from which specimenswere collected and this same speciesis the only sculpin speciesreported in the drainageby others(see Andrews 1972,Simpson and Wallace 1982,University of Michigan Museum of Zoology), it was assumedthat this was the speciesobserved at all sites.

The total streamlengths reported in the streamdescriptions were generallyobtained from topographic maps using a map wheel. Although care was taken to ensurethe accuracy of this work, the scale of the maps results in an underestimateof the actual stream length. However, the Forest Service Rl/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al.1997)physically measuresthe entire streamreach. Therefore,R1lR4 reach lengths are actualstreamlengths. For example,a topographicmap indicatedBig Creekwas 6.6 km long while the R1/R4 fish habitat inventory indicatedthe reachwas actually 79km long. However, sinceR1/R4 dataare not always available for a streamor streamreach, the streamlengths reported in the text are those calculated from topographic maps.

Data obtained in this study were used to revise the existing surface water map coverage on the GeographicInformation Systemat the Lost River Ranger District. Existing arcs in the map coveragewere reattributedaccording to the streamtype (perennialor intermittent) found in this study. The coverageis now believedto be accurateto +500 m, althoughstreams may experiencesome annual variation.

The surface water map coverage was then used as a base layer for developing a map coverage depicting fish speciesdistribution. Fish speciesdistribution was determinedby projecting the occunence of fish speciesfound at sampling sitesup and down perennialstream reaches. Streamgradient, barriers, size of flow. and field observationswere usedto determinethe upstreamlimit of fish distribution. For consistency, the distribution of one specieswas generallynot projectedthrough anothersampling site ifthe specieswas not found at that site. However, it shouldbe noted that speciesmay occasionallyoccur in or move through these reachesalthough they were not found during sampling. Likewise, this layer does not project fish distribution into intermittent streamsalthough they may occasionallyoccupy these reachesand use them for movement between perennial reaches. FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

Fish populationswere assessedin atotal of I7 | streamsections (Figure 2). One-hundred-thirty-five siteswere sampledby electrofishing,2Tby visual observation,6 by a combinationof electrofishingand visual survey,2 by hook and line, and 1 by snorkeling. A completesummary ofthe field sampling effort conducted during this study is presentedin Appendices A and B. For organizationalpurposes, the results have been divided into 4 separatesections. These are Part 1: History and Overview; Part 2: Species;Part 3: Subdrainages;and Part4: Lakes and Reservoirs.

Part 1: History and Overview

This sectionpresents a generaloverview of the water, fish, and fish managementin the Little Lost River drainage.

Water

Streams

During the presentstudy, 491 km of perennialstream, 40 km of perennial stream/marsh,and2,453 kmofintermittentstreamwerefoundinthedrainage(Figure3).Eachsubdrainageandlorstreamisdescribed in Part3.

Discharge - Dischargein most streamsvaries drastically from month to month andyear to year. Peak stream flows occur in June, while minimum flows occur in December and January (Table 2). However, streamsfed primarily by large springssuch as Big SpringsCreek, Deer Creek,Fallert Creek, Summit Creek, and Warm Springs Creek have little variability in their discharge(personal observation).

Temperatures - Until recently, streamtemperature datainthe drainagewere limited. The BLM collected streamtemperature datainthe drainageduring the summerand fall of 1987, 1988,7994, and 1995 (Appendix D). The Forest Servicecollected data in 1995 and 1996 (Appendix D). ln 1997, an interagency effort resulted in the continuousmonitoring of summerand fall water temperaturesat 43 locations(Figure 4, Appendix E). This monitoring indicatesmaximum streamtemperatures generally occur in late July and early August. The highestrecordedstream temperature (with the exceptionof Barney Creek)was 27"C intheLittle Lost fuver (Sawmill Creek) above Summit Creek in July 1994. Bamey Creek, a streamfed by a wafln springs, was29"C at its source (Barney Hot Springs) in June 1996 andMay 1997.

Lakes and Reserryoirs

There are lT lakes, 1 reservoir, 3 dysfunctional reservoirs, and several private ponds in the Little Lost River drainage(Gamett 1990b,LRRD file data,personal observation). All of the lakes in the drainage are small (less than 6 hectares)mountain lakes. The lakes and reservoirs are describedin detail in Part 4' Areaof Detail N

Scale 'l0Kilometers 5 0 5 r

Legend I Lake/R€sqvdr .\-/- Perennial Slream LandOffeuhip EA Fnd SeNi.e E$Huoflid$an4@t m Slateofldaho T---l Pn'vate N kpanml or tnergy a Fish Populatlon sampling site (19921997)

Figure 2. Sites sampled in the LitLle Lost River drainage during Lhe presenL study to obtain fish population data. Areaof Detail N

. Shes -* Mounlaln

,.!.' ',4 ;A ./\.(. \ , \. \ /'F{\sI- I ,,?.9'vl Mount }! i ^el t>-tt:' BEitenbach- Y't'..' n. J ')' ,.'

,1,. '"'-'\ -i \ # | ./"' i( ,

o Mackay

Scale 50510 Kilometers r Legend I Lakaneservoir n,\ Per€nnial Streqm \-') Intemittfl t srtream

o Moore

10

Figure 3. Perennial slreams, inlermittent sLreams, and lakes and reservoirs in the Lit.tle lost, River drainage as determined from Lhe presenL study. Table 2. Mean and annual discharges(m3ls) for Little Lost River (adaptedfrom Stone et al. 1993).

Little Lost Main Stem below River (SawmillCreek) Wet Creekb Main Stem near Howe"

Month Mean Max Min Mean Max Min Mean Max Min

January 0.4s 0.62 0.26 0.6s 1.s0 0.10 0.76 1.39 0

February 0.48 0.62 0.37 0.71 1.27 0.2s 1.00 2.27 0

March 0.s1 0.76 0.37 1.05 1.64 0.s1 1.56 3.r7 .048

April 0.96 2.27 0.48 1.8"1 4.59 0.68 2.38 4.93 1.13

May 4.22 8.98 |.s3 3.94 7.39 1.50 3.82 6.17 2.07

June s.66 I 1.53 r.33 5.55 10.03 2.29 4.64 6.77 2.66

July t.67 3.r7 0.62 2.83 5.89 0.96 3.03 5.52 r.42

August 0.82 1.47 0.42 1.78 3.99 0.74 2.t2 3.23 1.25

September 0.68 l.Os 0.45 |.70 3.62 0.76 2.04 3.14 1.36

October 0.59 0.85 0.40 1.70 2.86 0.93 2.r2 3.29 1.30

November 0.54 0.88 0.40 1.13 r.98 0.48 r.64 3.03 0.8s

1 aa December 0.48 4.96 0.26 0.62 I.JJ 0.23 0.88 1.61 0

Annual |.42 2.18 0.68 r.95 3.26 0.91 2.18 3.00 1.39 u Datafrom 1961-1973. b Datafrom 1959-1990. " Data from 1941-1981.1986-1990.

11 Areaof Detail N

Scale 5 0 5 l0Kilometers r

Legend ! LakdReseryoir ^-/' Perqnial Slream tandO*noshi! m ForesiSeruie E breu of tand I'iaEgmml m Sbteof ldaho I-- l P,ivate rel EpadMlstneqy

! WaterTemperature Monitoring Site

@ Airt"rp"r"t 16Monitoring sila

Figure 4. Temperature sites monitored in the Little LosL River drainage in t997. SpeciesPresent

Eleven speciesof fish and2hybrids have beendocumented in the Little Lost River drainage. These include bull trout Salvelinus confluentus, brook trout Salvelinusfontinalis, rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss, cutthroat trott Oncorhynchus clarki, rainbow trout x cutthroat trout Oncorhynchus mykiss x Oncorhynchus clarki, brook trout x bull trout Salvelinus fontinalis x Salvelinus confluentus, grayling Thymallus,qp.,shorthead sculpin Cottus coffisus, guppy Poecilia reticulata, green swordtail Xiphophorus helleri, amelanic convict cichlid Cichlasomanigrofosciatum,Mozambique tilapia Tilapia mossambica, and goldfish Carassiusauratus (presentstudy, Gamett 1990a,Gamett 1990b,Corsi and Elle 1989, Courtenay et al. 1987,Elle et al. 1987,Corsi et al. 1986,Corsi and Elle 1986,Ball and Jeppson1978, Jeppson and Ball 1978, Andrews 1972, USR file data, LRRD frle data,IFD file data, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology [UMMZI). Mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni have not been found in fish collections completedin the drainage. However, local residentsindicate whitefish were presenfin the Little Lost River in the early i900's (JamesWaymire, local resident, personal communication). Although not documented, browntrout Salmo truttahave apparentlybeen caught in the lower portion of the drainagein recentyears (Will Marcroft, LRRD, personalcommunication). A single introduction of goldentrout Oncorhynchusaguabonita did not establish a population. A drainagewide overview of each of these speciesis presentedinPart2.

SpeciesOrigin

It is unclearwhich speciesof fish were nativeto the Lost Streamsincluding the Little Lost River. The lack of an overland streamconnection between the Lost Streamsand other drainagescurrently prevents fish from gaining accessto these drainages. While it is obvious that brook trout, brown trout, guppy, green swordtail, amelanic convict cichlids, Mozambiquetilapi4 goldfish, and all mountain lake populationsare the result of introductions, other speciesmay have beennaturally establishedin the Lost Streamsduring ancient exchangesof water with other drainages.Yet authorsdisagree as to which speciesare native and the manner in which they were established.

Hubbs and Miller (1948) describedthe fish of the "Mud Lake-LostRiver group of streams"as follows:

In the several streams(Camas, Medicine Lodge, and Birch creelrs,and Little Lost and Lost rivers) wefound 3 species: an endemicspecies of cutthroqt trout; the Dolly Varden ftout (probably a Glacial relict, rather than an introducedfish); and 5 highly localized, endemicsubspecies or races in the genus Cotttn, None of thesespecies are Bonneville types,despite thefact that the stream complex lies in the upper part of the SnakeRiver systems,which in general has a Bonnevillefauna..,These fishes seemto be relicts of the old Snake Riverfauna, as it existedprior to the time of the destructive Iavaflows and of the Lake Bonneville discharge

This accountis basedon fish collectedfrom thesestreams by Carl Hubbs 1n 1934(R. Miller, personal communication,UMMZ). Theserecords indicate that 4 sites in the Little Lost River drainagewere sampled on July 19 and20. Speciescollected in the Little Lost River drainagewere rainbow trout, shortheadsculpin, one brook trout, one bull trout, and one rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrid.

In his field notes(UMMZ), CarlHubbs recordedthe following for the collection site on the Little Lost River between Badger Creek and Wet Creek:

IJ Two boys along stream whoJish it say that tltere are only rainbow trout, bull trout and bullheads. Catch bullheads at night with light. They didn't know which of thefish were introduced.

Dr. Baker, druggist of Mackay, and a long+ime resident of the region, believes that the bull nout are native of the region.

Andrews (1972) believedcutthroat trout, bull trou! shortheadsculpin, and mountain whitefish were native to the Lost Streams. He believedthese fish representedspecies from both the SnakeRiver and Salmon River drainages.Drawing on other literature,he describedthe eventsthathe believed led to the establishment of these speciesin the Lost Streams. He believedthat prior to the Pleistocene,the SnakeRiver was flowing down the middle of the SnakeRiver Plain. At that time, the present day PahsimeroiRiver and Little Lost River, Big LostRiver and Warm Spring Creek,and Birch Creekand Lemhi River eachformed single streams that drained into the SnakeRiver. During this time, cutthroattrout and mountain whitefish were established in the Lost Streams from the Snake River. Pleistocenevolcanic activity then pushed the Snake River southwardand severedits connectionwith the Lost Streams,Uplifting and faulting separatedthe streamsinto the presentday drainagepattern with the Big Lost River, Little Lost River, andBirch Creekflowing southward and sinking into the Snake River Plain and the other streamsdraining northward into the Salmon River. At sometime, bull trout and shortheadsculpin were establishedin the Lost Streamsthrough headwater stream capture from the Salmon River drainage.

Behnke (1992) believedbull trout, cottid sculpin, and possibly cutthroattrout were native to the Lost Streams. He reported:

The question of the native trout of the Lost River streams remains open. The otherfish speciesnative to thesestreams - bull trout and cottid sculpins - are alsofound in the Salmon River drainage but not in the upper SnakeRiver. My interpretation is that Pleistocenevolcanic eruptionseliminated allfish life from these streams and buried their connections with the upper SnakeRiver. Subsequently, headwater stream transfers from the Salmon River system established the present fauna. If this is true, westslopecutthroat trout would be the native trout of the Lost River slveamsunless the ffansfer occurred at a time when Yellowstonecutthroat trout inhabited the Salmon River drainage.

However, Van Eimeren (1996) and Rieman and Apperson (1989) both concluded that westslope cutthroattro ut O. c. Iewisi,the cutthroattrout subspeciespresent in the SalmonRiver drainage,were not native to the Lost Streams.Similarly, }rlay (1996) concludedYellowstone cutthroattrout O. c. bouvieri, the cutthroat trout subspeciespresent in the upper SnakeRiver drainage,were not native to the Lost Streams. Although Thurow et al. ( 1988)indicated Yellowstone cutthroattrout were presentin the Lost Streams,they did not know if these fish were native.

Simpsonand Wallace (1982) depictedthe rainbow trout of the Lost Streamsas introduced. However, Corsi and Elle (1989) reasonedthat headwaterstream capture may have establishedthis speciesin the Lost Streamsfrom the Salmon River drainage.

Thurow et al. (1997) and Lee et al. (1997) concludedthat rainbow trout, Yellowstone cutthroattrout, and westslope cutthroat trout were likely not native to the Little Lost River drainage. However, Rieman et al. (lgg7) and Lee etal. (1997) concludedthat bull trout were likely present in the drainageprior to European settlement.

l4 It is also possiblethat trout were not native to the Little Lost River drainage. Early historical accounts indicate that trout were not presentin the Big Lost River or Birch Creek drainagesprior to their introduction in the late 1800's(Locke 1929, Sonnenkalb 1925, Oberg 1970). If trout were not present in the Little Lost River drainage, earlyEuropean settlers, who first arrived in 1879 (Anna Sermon,valley historian, personal oommunication),may have introducedthem from the PahsimeroiRiver drainage. It is also possiblethat bull trout moved into the Little Lost River through a small canal from the PahsimeroiRiver drainage. This canal, which was probably built in the late 1800'sby the Swaugerfamily (Robert R. Mays, local resident, personal communication), delivers water from Big Gulch Creek in the PahsimeroiRiver drainageto the upper portion of the Little Lost River drainage. Bull trout are present in Big Gulch Creek and can move into the upper portion of the Little Lost River drainagethrough this canal (personalobservation).

Although thesetheories give muoh insight as to the possiblenative fish of the Little Lost River and their origins, they differ greatly from eachother. Only with additional researchwill the correctnative species and meansof origin be established.

Previous Work

Historical data (before 1950)relating to fish in the Little Lost River drainageis scarce. The earliest referenceto fish in the Little Lost River drainagethat could be locatedis provided by Williams et al. (1973). This unpublished family history gives an account of the Williams family settling in the Little Lost River valley in the 1880's. The accountindicates thatthe "...streamswere full of fish." It alsomentions the "enormous" fishing catcheson the Little Lost River betweenWarm Creekand SquawCreek. An additionalearly reference is provided by Anna Sermon, alocal resident and valley historian (personal communication). Her great- grandparents,who were settlersto the valley, indicatedthat in the 1880'sthere were lots of fish in the river. She also indicated that fish were an important food source for early residents of the valley. For example, her family would eat about 500 fish per year. Another referenceto fish in the Little Lost River is provided by Mullen (1970). This accountdetails the author spendingthe summerof 1904 mining in the Little Lost River valley. He indicatesthat the streamnear the mine was "teaming" with trout. Based on his description and direction and length of travel, it appearshe was in the headwatersof Sawmill Canyon. The next referenceto fish in the Little Lost River is found in the University of Michigan's ichthyological collection. Theserecords indicate that Carl Hubbs collected fish from 4 locations in the drainagein July 1934. This work was later referenced by Hubbs and Miller (1943) (R.R. Miller, University of Michigan, personal communication). FWPWPA ( 1937)indicates rainbow trout were "especiallycommon" in the Little Lost River. Andrews (1972) sampledfive sectionsof the mainstemin 1970. Ball and Jeppson(1978), Jeppson and Ball (1978),and USR file dataprovide creel censusdata collected between 1967 and 1979. Keller and Burnham (1982) and Keller etal. (1979) describea grazingexclosureproject on Summit Creek andthe responseofthe fish population and habitat. Corsi et al. (1986), Corsi and Elle (1986), and Elle et al. (1987) describesampling efforts completed by the Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game in the early and mid 1980's. Corsi and Elle (1989) conductedan intensive study of fish populationsin the drainagein 1987. Bruhn (1990) describesaBLM gtazingexclosure project on Wet Creek and the responseof the fish population andhabitat. Gamett (1990a,1990b) and LRRD file datadescribe mountain lake fish populations.

l5 Fishery Management l{istory

The Little Lost River drainage has an extensive history of fish introductions (Table 3). Species inhoduced have included rainbow trout, cuffhroat trout, brook trout, mountain whitefish, golden trout, and grayling. Although not introduced by the Department of Fish and Game, brown trout have apparently been introduced into the lower portion of the drainage.The presenceof guppy, green swordtail, amelanicconvict cichlids, Mozambique tilapia (Courtenay et al. 1987) and goldfish (USR file data) in Barney Hot Springs indicate these specieshave also beenintroduced. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game records indicate fish had been introduced into the Little Lost River drainageby at least 1915. At that time, 10,000rainbow trout and i5,000 brook trout were stocked. Likewise, cutthroattrout may have been introducedinto Dry Creek in 1915 (see Part2: Species,Cutthroat Trout). Sincethattime, fish have been stockedinto the mainstem (including Sawmill Creek) and every major tributary including BadgerCreek, Big Creek,Big SpringsCreek, Deer Creek, Dry Creek, Mill Creek, Summit Creek,Uncle Ike Creek, Wet Creek, and possibly SquawCreek. Fish have also beenintroduced into Big CreekLake#2, CopperLake, Mill Creek Lake, Nolan Lake, Shadow Lake#1, ShadowLake#2, SwaugerLake#7, SwaugerLake#2, andDryCreekReservoir. Undoubtedly, unrecorded fish introductions have also taken place throughout the drainage.

With the exception of Big Springs Creek and mountain lakes, the Little Lost River drainage has been managedfor wild ffout production since 1985. Hatchery introductionsinto most streamsbegan to be phased out in the 1970's and early 1980's. With the exception of Big Springs Creek and mountain lakes, hatchery introductions were completely discontinued in the drainage after 1984. Currently, Big Springs Creek is stocked with catchable rainbow trout (Bruce Rich, IDFG, personal communication). Swauger Lake #1, SwaugerLak e #2,llr/Jll Creek Lake, and Upper Big CreekLake are stockedevery 3 yearswith cutthroattrout fry

In l994,wild trout regulations were implemented in the majority of the drainage. Prior to that time, the Little Lost River drainagewasmanaged under a generaltrout regulation. The wild trout regulation allows for the harvestof 2 trout per day inthe river and hibutaries aboveBig SpringsCreek. The drainagebelow Big Springs Creek, Big Springs Creek, and high mountain lakes remain under the statewide general trout regulation, which allows 6 trout to be harvested. However, only 2 cutthroat trout or cutthroat trout hybrids may be harvested from any drainage stream. The statewide regulation allowing an additional 10 brook trout remains in effect throughout the drainage. As with most of the state,bull trout harvest was closed in 1994.

Creel censusdata were periodically gatheredfrom drainagestreams between 1967and 1987(see Ball and Jeppson1978; Jeppson and Ball 1979; Corsi and Elle 1989; USR file data) and from mountain lakes in 1990 and 1994 (seeGamett 1990aandLRRD file data) (seeTable 4 for drainagesummaries; Appendix C for completeresults). Catch ratesfor salmonidsin drainagestreams averaged | .4, I.3, and 1.6 fishlhour in 1977, 7978,and 1987,respectively (Ball and Jeppson1978; Jeppson and Ball 7979; Corsi and Elle 1989).

Catch rates for rainbow trout in drainage streamsremained relatively unchanged following the cessationofhatchery introductions. In 1978,catch ratesfor all rainbow trout (both wild and hatchery) from drainage streamswas 1.1 fishihour (review of Jeppsonand Ball 1979). In 1987, after stocking had been discontinuedin all but Big SpringsCreek, catch ratesfor rainbow trout were 1.2 fish/hour (review of Corsi andElle 1989).

t6 Table 3. Summary of waters and speciesstocked in the Little Lost River drainage(adapted from Idaho Department of Fish and Game stocking records).

Water SpeciesPlanted BadgerCreek rainbowtrout, brooktrout Big Creek rainbowtrout, cutthroattrout, brooktrout Big CreekLake#2 rainbow kout, cutthroattrout Big SpringsCreek rainbow trout CopperLake cutthroattrout DeerCreek rainbowtrout Dry Creek rainbowtrout, cutthroattrout Dry CreekReservoir rainbowtrout Little Lost River (includingSawmill Creek) rainbowtrout, brooktrout, cutthroattrout, mountain whitefish"

Mill Creek rainbowtrout, brook troutb, cutthroat troutb Mill CreekLake rainbowtrout, cutthroat trout, grayling Nolan Lake goldentrout ShadowLake#l (lower) cutthroattrout ShadowLake#2 (upper) rainbowtrout, cutthroattrout SquawCreek brooktroutb, cutthroat troutb SummitCreek rainbowtrout SwaugerLake#l (lower) rainbowtrout, cutthroattrout SwaugerLake #2 (upper) cutthroattrout UncleIke Creek brooktrout Wet Creek rainbowtrout, cutthroattrout ; ihese fish are recordedas "whitefish" from "MACKAY SALVAGE". Likely thesewere mountain whitefish Prosopium williamsoni salvagedfrom the Big Lost River drainage. b The stocking records indicate that these fish were stocked into Mill Creek and Squaw Creek in Custer county. However, it is not clear if these particular specieswere stocked into these streamsin the Little Lost River or another stream in Custer county with the samename'

t7 Table 4. Mean angler catch rates and speciescomposition for the Little Lost River drainage.

# Anglers Hours Fish/ SpeciesComposition Year Interviewed Fished Hour Wrb Hrb Bk BI Ct Source 1987 47 73.5 1.6 786Ib Corsiand Elle 1989 1978 157 309 1.3 6121162 Jeppsonand Ball 1979 r977 350 69r 1.4 3546t44r Jeppsonand Ball 1978 " USR file dataindicates all of these cutthroat trout were caught in Dry Creek.

Habitat Management llistory

Severalfisheries habitatimprovement/restorationprojects have been implementedin the Little Lost River drainage. Each of theseprojects is summarizedunder the tributary in which it took place.

Between 1994 and 1997, frshhabitat data were gatheredfrom drainage streamsusing the Forest ServiceR1/R4 Q.{orthem/IntermountainRegions) Fish and Fish Habitat Inventory Proceduresdescribed by Overton et al. 1997 (Appendix F). By the end of 1997,the survey had been completed on all fish bearing streamson National Forest lands in the drainage. In addition, habitat data have been collected by the Idaho Falls and SalmonBLM districts.

Part2: Snecies

Introduction

Bull trout, brook trout, rainbow trout, cutthroattrout, rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrids, brook trout x bull trout hybrids, grayling, shortheadsculpin, guppy, green swordtail, amelanic convict cichlids, Mozambique tilapia, and goldfish have been documentedin the Little Lost River drainage (present study, Gamett 1990a,Gamett 1990b,Corsi and Elle 1989,Courtenay et al. 1987,Elle et al. 1987,Corsi et al. 1986, Corsi and Elle 1986,Ball andJeppson 1978, Jeppson and Ball 1978,Andrews I972,USR file data,UMMZ). During the current study, salmonidswere found to occupy most streamsin the basin (Figure 5). Mountain whitefish have not beenfound in fish collectionscompleted in the drainage.However, local residentsindicate whitefish were presentin the Little Lost River in the early 1900's(James Waymire, local resident, personal communication). Although not documented,brown trout have apparently been caught in the lower portion of the drainagein recent years (Will Marcroft, LRRD, personal communication). A single introduction of golden trout did not establish a population. A drainagewide overview of each of the speciesis presented below.

l8 Areaof Detail N

lrount *i' ' Brcitcnbach g sP"

6r Mackay

Scale 5 0 5 l0Kilometers F

Legend o Howe I Laker'Reervoir /A Kins-* lt J A, PercnnialS'trqm lrountain. ,n a%<.oOe.sor, 1 .- gf,6satmia Dstrilutio

o Moore

L9

Fisure 5. Current distribuLion of all salmonids in Lhe LiLtle LosL River drainage (present study). Bull Trout

Distribution

Although bull trout are widely distributed in the drainage,their distribution is fragmented. Data collectedduring the presentstudy indicatebull trout occupy approximately164 km of stream(Figure 6). Bull trout are the only salmonid presentin approxim ately 32 km of stream. During the present study, bull trout were found in the upper reach of Badger Creek, the upper reach of Big Creek, the lower reach of Bunting Canyon Creek, the lower reach of Camp Creek, Firebox Creek, Hawley Creek, Iron Creek, Jackson Creek, the mid and upper reachesof the mainstem(including Sawmill Creek),Mill Creek,Quigley Creek,Redrock Creek, Smithie Fork, an unnamedtributary to Smithie Fork, Summit Creek, Timber Creek, Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon), North Fork Squaw Creek, the lower reach of Slide Creek, the upper reach of Warm Creek, Wet Creek (exceptthe mid section),and Williams Creek. Bull trout comprised25Yo or more of the salmonids captured in the lower reach ofBunting Canyon Creek, the lower reach of Camp Creek, Firebox Creek, Hawley Creek, Iron Creek,Jackson Creek, the mainstem(including Sawmill Creek) aboveIron Creek Road,Mill Creek, Quigley Creek, Redrock Creek,the lower reach of Slide Creek, Smithie Fork, an unnamed tributary to Smithie Fork, upper SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon),North Fork SquawCreek, Timber Creek, the upper reach of Warm Creek, the lower and upper reach of Wet Creek, and Williams Creek.

Some bull trout populations were highly localized. For example, in Wet Creek 2 sampling sites located 6 km apartsuggestedbull trout were not presentin the upper portion of the stream. However, at the request of the BLM, an additional site was sampledmidway between these 2 sectionsand bull trout were found. Additional sampling indicated a relatively large, undocumentedbull trout population occupied the sectionof streambetween the2 initial sampling sites. Similar localization was found in Warm Creek. Only rainbow trout were found in Warm Creek 400 m above the Little Lost River in June 1995. However, only bull trout were collected at a site approximately 3 km above the Little Lost River the sameday. This degreeof localizationcan make the detection of bull trout extremely difficult even with intensive sampling efforts and could result in bull trout going undetectedin a stream or watershed.

Historic Distribution

It is difficult to determinethe precisedistribution of bull trout in the Little Lost River drainageprior to the arrival of Europeanman. Likely, bull trout were historically presentin all streamsin which they are cugently found. The presenceof bull trout in the mainstemnear Howe in 1983(Corsi et al. 1986)prior to the annualdewatering of this section of sffeam indicatesthat bull trout occupied the entire mainstem from the headwatersto the sinks. Although not found in the presentstudy or in 1987(Corsi and Elle 1989),creel censusdata indicate bull trout were presentin Big SpringsCreek as recentas 1977 (Appendix C). Similarly, bull trout were found in lower Squaw Creek in the Wet Creek drainage in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989). However, bull trout were not collected from Squaw Creek during the present study. Apparently, bull ffout were also historically presentin Dry Creek. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River valley in 1910, indicatedthat in the 1920'shecaught only "dolly varden" in Dry Creek Reservoir and Dry Creek above the reservoir (personalcommunication). Rob Stauffer,an arearesident, indicated that in the early 1960's"dolly varden" comprised about l0%oof the fish he caught in Dry Creek (personal communication).

20 Areaof Detail N

SummitCr.€k ..*"""to*d

Mount *l Breilsbach'-

oPf"

+S.rile bdir {

o Mackay r

Scale 5 0 5 l0Kilometers r

Legend O Howe I Lat

Figure 5. CurrenL distribution of bull trout in the LiLtle l,osL River drainage (present studY). An early record of bull trout in Wet Creekwas made by Carl Hubbs while collecting fish inthe area during the summer of 1934(UMMZ). Although he did not collect any bull trout from Wet Creek (see Wet Creek in Part 3), he recordedthe following in his field notes:

Dr. Baker, druggist af Mackay and a lang-time resident of the region, says that there are several "bottomlessholes" in the courseof Wet Creek, which until they were dynamited afew months ago were "full" of bull trout (Dolly Vardens).

Although bull trout were presentin the mainstem below Summit Creek in the early part of this century, fwo accountssuggest they were not abundantin this reach. Wilma Mays hasbeen a residentof the Little Lost River valley since shewas born there in 1919(personal communication). She first fished the stream with a safety pin, piece of white twine from the grocery store,and a greenwillow. Sheindicated that in the 1920's, most of the fish she caught in the mainstemnear Williams Creek were rainbow trout. "Dolly varden" were not very abundant. In the mainstembelow Summit Creek in the 1930'sand 1940's,only about 1 in 25 or 30 fish were bull trout and the remainderwere rainbow trout. The bull trout caughtwere approximately 150 to 175 mm in length. She does not remember any brook trout at that time. Similarly, in 1934, Carl Hubbs collected fish from the Little Lost River betweenBadger Creek and Wet Creek with a seine (UMMZ). He collected 2 rainbow trout (136 mm and 56 mm), one bull trout (136 mm), and shortheadsculpin (22mm). Anna Sermon, a local residentand valley historian,has fished in the drainagesince about 1938(personal communication). In the 1940's,her family fished in the drainageall but about five days each season. In the river below Big SpringsCreek, they caughtabout 300 fish eachyear. In the samearea, they would also catch about 100 fish annually from irigation ditcheswhen they went dry. However, only about 2 or 3 of the 400 fish caught each year in this areawere bull trout.

Accounts from anglerssuggest bull trout were not historically presentin Deer Creekand Horss Creek. Arura Sermon has fished Deer Creek since about 1938 (personal communication). However, she has never caught a bull ffout in that stream. In addition, her family often fished Deer Creek between the late 1930's and the late 1940's. Although they would catch between50 and 150 fish in Deer Creek on a single outing, none of the fish were bull trout. Neil Reed, who has fished the Little Lost River drainagesince the late 1930's, regularly fished Horse Creek. However, he has never caught a bull trout from that stream (Anna Sermon, valley historian,personal communication)'

It is likely that bull trout were not able to becomeestablished in many streamsand streamreaches due to their natural isolation. Someisolated sffeams such as Uncle Ike Creek,South Creek, Summerhouse Canyon Creek, and Hurst Canyon Creek have probably not had connectionsto other streams in the drainage for hundreds or thousandsof years. Other stream reaches,such as the upper portion of Long Lost Creek, are isolated by large waterfalls. If bull trout invaded the Little Lost River basin after these streamsor stream reachesbecame isolated, they would not have been able to accessthese streams. It is also possible that bull trout were never abundantor present in some streamswith naturally high water temperaturessuch as Deer Creek, Horse Creek, and Summit Creek.

Life History Strategies

Bull trout in the Little Lost River use both resident and fluvial (migratory) life-history strategies. Residentfish spendtheir entire lives in small streamssuch as Williams Creekwhile fluvial fish spenda portion of their lives in the mainstem and migrate to headwaterstreams to spawn. Similarly, Fraley and Shepard (1989) found both resident and migratory forms of bull trout in the FlatheadRiver drainage in Montana.

22 Bull trout in the mainstem(including Sawmill Creek) below Iron CreekRoad are fluvial and migrate to headwaterstreams to spawn. During the current study, the smallestbull trout captured in the mainstem below Iron CreekRoad ( 10 samplingsites) was 15 I mm in length. Otherdata from below the Forestboundary (Corsi etal. 1986;Corsi and Elle 1986;Elle et al. 1987;Corsi and Elle 1989)also indicates a lack of smallbull trout in the mainstem below this point. ln 1987,Corsi and Elle (1989) found age one and age2bull trout in the Little Lost River drainagewere 99 mm and 155mm in length,respectively. The lack of young-of-the-year and ageone bull trout in the mainstembelow Iron CreekRoad indicatethat thesefish are migrating elservhere to spawn.

It appearsthe primary spawning areasfor fluvial fish are tributary streamsin the Sawmill Canyon drainage. Large bull trout over 300 mm in length have beenobserved in many streamsin Sawmill Canyon in July, August, andlor September(present study, Corsi and Elle 1989),the spawningperiod. The large size of these fish relative to the size of the stream suggeststhey are migrant spawnersthat have moved into these streams to spawn. If this is true, some bull trout may be currently migrating over 30 km to spawn and historically may have moved over 80 km, the length of the river. The high densitiesof young bull trout in Smithie Fork, the mainsteur above Smithie Fork, and Firebox Creek suggestthese streams are the most important spawning and rearing tributaries for fluvial bull trout. In 1995,bull trout densities (fish >70 mm) were as high as 30.3 fish/l00m2 in Smithie Fork and 20.4 frsh/100m2in the mainstemabove Smithie Fork.

The size of bull trout in Big Creek suggeststhey arealso part of a fluvial population. Creel census and electrofishing data indicatethat bull trout up to 430 mm have been caught in Big Creek (USR file data, personalobservation). In 1994,a 389 mm bull trout was capturedimmediately below the large beaver pond near the head of Big Creek. Another fish measuring455 mm that appearedto be a brook ffout x bull trout hybrid was capturedin the samelocation. In 1997,an angler caught a635 mm,3.9 kg brook trout x bull trout hybrid from the large beaverpond (Big Creek Lake) nearthe headof Big Creek. The large size of thesefish relative to the size of the streamsuggests they may be fluvial fish that havemigrated into Big Creekto spawn. If so, they are likely migrating from lower Wet Creek and/or the mainstem of the Little Lost River.

Likewise, some of the bull trout found in the upper reach of Wet Creek may be fluvial fish. Bull trout over 300 mm in length were observedwhile snorkeling in the beaverponds immediately below Hilts Creek on July 2,1996. The large sizeof thesefish relative to the size of Wet Creek suggeststhey arefluvial fish and have migrated into theseareas to spawn. As with Big Creek,they are likely migrating from lower Wet Creek and/or the mainstem of the Little Lost River. Length frequency data suggestthe bull trout in Wet Creek above the falls located 0.8 km aboveHilts Creek are residentfish. It is likely that the old diversion structure, falls, and cascadesbelow this population limit the migration of fish upstreaminto this reach.

There is not sufficient datato determineif the bull trout found in Mill Creek, Quigley Creek, Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon), Slide Creek, North Fork Squaw Creek, Warm Creek, and Badger creeks are associatedwith a fluvial population. Length frequencydistribution dataand length at sexualmaturity suggest that the bull trout in upper SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon) are residentfish, It is likely that fluvial bull trout from the mainstemhistorically usedall of these streamsfor spawning and rearing. However, the bull trout currently found in these streamsmay now only comprise remnantsof a former fluvial population that has reverted to residency. In addition, resident fish may be synpafric with fluvial fish in streamslike Smithie Fork, although this distinction is difficult.

Although fluvial bull trout likely historicallymigrated into Williams Creek,these fish arenow resident. Williams (1973) indicatesthat Williams Creekhas been used for irigation purposessince the late 1800's. Curyently,Williams Creek is permanentlydiverted from the mainstem of the Little Lost River. As a result, bull trout are not able to migrate into Williams Creek'

^a Diet

The diet of bull trout in the Little Lost River hasnot beenstudied. However, datafrom elsewheregive an indication of what they eat. Juvenilebull trout in streamsin the FlatheadRiver drainage,Montana, fed on aquatic inseots in approximately the sameproportion they were available in streams(Fraley and Shepard 1989). However, once fish exceeded110 mm in length they began eating small lrout and sculpin. After bull trout moved into Flathead Lake they fed almost exclusively on fish. In Iron Creek, a stream in the upper Little Lost River drainage, a260 mm bull trout had a 152 mm bull trout in its stomach(USR file data).

Growth

ln 1987,Corsi and Elle (1989) studiedbull trout growth in the Little Lost River drainage (Table 5). Most of the scalescollected for this analysiswere from bull trout in the mainstem(including Sawmill Creek) and tributaries in Sawmill Canyon(Chip Corsi, IDFG, personalcommunication). It is likely most ofthese fish were associatedwith the mainstem/SawmillCanyon fluvial population. Mean length was 99, 155,240, and 314mm at age1,2,3, and4, respectively.

Tabte 5. Comparison of bull trout lengths at annulus from the Little I-ost River to other systems.

Lensthat Annulus

Location N 1234s678 Source Little Lost Riveru 85 99 1s5 240 3r4 Corsiand Elle 1989 Little Lost River | 145 235 350 404 475 555 635b Upper Snake (SawmillCreek) Regionfile data

EastFork Salmon r44 75 150 237 349 431 527 647 Elle 1995 River, Id"

CrookedRiver,Id" 106 66 rl9 189 286 371 424 Elle 1995

SouthFork Salmon nJa 68 110 ls4 217 284 Thurow1987 River.Id" North Fork Flathead 929 73 117 165 301 440 538 s74 Fraleyand Shepard River, Mt" 1989 Middle Fork LAfi s2 100 165 297 399 488 567 6ss Fraleyand Shepard FlatheadRiver, Mt" 1989 ; This sample may have included a combination of fluvial and resident fish. b This was a male caughtby an angler on July 14,1984. The 635 mm length is the length of the fish at the time it was caught. " This data representsfluvial populations.

24 Although the drainageis small, bull trout do reachlarge sizes. In July 1983,a six year old male measuring 635 mm was caughtby an angler in the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) (USR file data). Other fish 400 mm and longer have beendocumented (present study, Corsi and Elle 1986, Corsi and Elle 1989,USR file data). The largest bull trout found during the presentstudy was a 445 mm fish captured in Wet Creek immediately below Big Creek on July 2,1997. The largestbull fout from the Sawmill Canyon drainagewas a 406 mm fish collected in 1995 from the mainstem(Sawmill Creek) behind the Fairview Guard Station. In 1997, a430 mm bull trout was caughtin Williams Creek. How this fish was able to get this large in a small, disjunct stream is not clear.

Sexual Nlaturity

There is little dataavailable relating to ageand length atmaturity for bull trout in the Little Lost River drainage. A literature review by Rieman and Mclntyre (1993) found most bull trout mature between5 andT years of age. However, bull trout maturing as early as age 3 has been reported (Scotf and Crossman 1973). Dissection of a286 mm femalebull trout from lower Smithie Fork (likely a fluvial fish) indicatedthe fish was mature. The length frequency dishibution of bull trout from this site and age at length data for bull trout from the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989)suggest this fish was 4 yearsold.

Limited data indicateresident fish mature at approximately age4. Dissectionof a 199mm 4 year old female bull trout (age determinedby scale analysisand length frequency) from upper Williams Creek indicated the fish was mature. A2 yearold (120 mm) and a3 yearold (approximately140 mm) bull trout from the same site were not mature. Similarly, a 184 mm 4 year old female bull trout from upper Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon) was mature. Although length at maturity appearsto differ between fluvial and resident fish, age at maturity appearsto be similar,

Spawning, Incubationo and Rearing

Although there is little information regarding bull trout spawning, incubation, and rearing for the Little Lost River drainage,they have been studied extensively elsewhere. Fraley and Shepard (1989) studied adfluvial bull trout in the FlatheadRiver drainage,Montana. They found that spawningadfluvial bull trout left FlatheadLake and beganmigrating upstreamin April. The fish remainedat the mouth of spawning streams for 2to 4 weeks, fhen enteredthe streamsat night betweenJuly and September.However, spawning,which 'C, occurredwhen streamtemperatures dropped below 9 to I 0 did not take place for a month or more after the fish enteredthe streams.

Swanberg(1997) studiedthe seasonalmovement and habitatuseof fluvial bull trout in the Blackfoot River drainage,Montana. He found that upstreammigrations, which began in June,were associatedwith a decline in runoff and an increasein streamtemperatures. The majority of bull trout began migrating during peaksin streamtemperatures (mean streamtemperature 17.7"C). Migration rateswere correlatedto average maximum daily temperatureand ranged from 1.9 to 11.8 km/day. Fish enteredtributaries in late June and early July, where they remainedfor up to 77 daysbeforespawning in late September.Bull trout beganmoving downstreamshortly after completion of spawning. Eighty-six peroentof the fish returnedto the samelocation occupied in the spring. Winter movements of bull trout were never greaterthan about 300 m.

25 In 1995 and 1996, the maximum daily stream temperature in headwater streams in the Sawmill Canyon drainagefluctuated aboveand below 10'C throughoutthe summer(see Appendix D). Hor,vever,in September, a sharp drop in stream temperaturesoccurred in which the maximum daily stream temperatures fell and remainedbelow 10'C. In 1997,the maximum daily streamtemperature in headwaterstreams in Sawmill Canyon remainedabove 10'C throughoutthe summer. Howevet, the maximum daily temperature in many of these streamsdropped and remainedbelow 10"C in mid September.This temperatureshift may indicate the onset of bull trout spawning. In 1998,redds were observedin the drainage above Moonshine Creek in early October indicating at least some bull trout had spawnedby that time.

In the Flathead River drainage, bull trout were highly selective in determining spawning sites. Spawning sites were characterizedby gravel substrates,low compaction, low gradient, groundwater influence, and proximity to cover (Fraley and Shepard1989). The high degreeof selectivity resulted in spawning bull trout utilizin gonly 28o/oofavailable streams; Mean fecundity for 32 fluvial fish from Flathead Lake averaging 645mm in length was 5,482 eggs. Residentfish (300 mm) in Washingtonhad lessthan200 eggs(Mullan et al. 1992). In Coal Creek, a tributary to the FlatheadRiver, 50% hatch occurred 113 days (340 temperature units) after deposition(Fraley and Shepard1989). Fry remainedin the gravel for an additional 110 days(295 temperatureunits) before emerging. Eighteenpercent ofjuvenile migratory bull trout left tributary streams in the FlatheadRiver drainageat ageone, 49%o at age2,32yo at age3 , and lYo at age4. Lenglh frequencydata from the Little Lost River suggestthat fluvial bull trout probably spendone or two years in headwater streams before moving into the mainstem.

I{abitat C haracteristics

Rieman and Mclntyre ( 1993 ) identified 5 habitatoharacteristics that were critical to bull trout. These are channel stability, substratecomposition, cover) temperature, and migratory coridors. During the present study, the highestdensities of bull trout were found in the upper sectionof SmithieFork, which had 30.3 fish1100mt 1fish >70 mm). Streamhabitat data were gatheredfrom this stream in 1994 (Table 6). Stream temperature data were collected in 1997 (Figure 4).

Stream temperaturesare believed to be the most important factor affecting bull trout distribution (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). An extensive literature review completed by these authors found that temperaturesin excessof about l5"C appearto limit distribution. A comparisonof streamtemperature data collected in 1997from the mainstemof the Little Lost River and Wet Creek with population data collected between 1995-1997supports this conclusion. Although bull trout were found in water that was 2}"C,they comprised lessthan 50%oof the salmonid composition in streamsthathad a maximum summer temperature that exceededabout 15'C (Figure 7 and8, Table 7 and 8). When the maximum summer streamtemperature exceededabout 17"C, bull trout generallycomprised less than 10% of the speciescomposition.

High groundwater temperaturesandlor harsh winter conditions may preclude the successfulincubation of bull trout eggsin some streamsin the drainageand subsequentlylimit the distribution of bull trout in those samestreams. McPhail and Munay (1979) found that water temperaturesof 2 to 4" C were ideal for bull trout egg incubation. At waters temperaturesof 8 to 10'C egg survival was 0 to 20%. Available datafrom the Little t-ost River drainage indicate that bull trout are generally not found in streamswhose primary source springshave water temperaturesgreater than about 7"C. It is possible that water in these streamsemerges from the ground too warm to successfullyincubate bull trout eggs. For example,bull trout were not found in the North Fork Deer Creek and South Fork Deer Creek. Both of these streamsemerge frorn large single

26 Table 6. Comparisonof bull trout densitiesand habitat characteristicsfrom Smithie Fork (relatively high density) and Timber Creek (relatively low density).

StreamReach

Characteristic Smithie#1 Smithie#2 Timber#1

Bull trouti100 m'z(1995) 26.4 30.3 4.6u

Other salmonids present rainbowtrout no rainbowtrout

Other fish present 110 no shortheadsculpin

Reach length (m) 1203 3238 2949

a Stream order 2 2 3

Mean width (m) 3.0 2.4 2.6

Mean width:depth ratio 15.3 12.7 15.9

Side channel:total reach length ratio .09 .08 .04

Maximum summer stream 15.5 n/a 15.8 temperature"C (1997)

aa % Pools 48 50 JJ

oZUndercut bank 25 43 4

o/oBankstability 94 99 85

Substratecoverage

o/oFines 15 12 10

%oSmall Gravel l2 6 8

%aGravel 20 15 2I

% Small Cobble 27 27 28

Yo Cobble 22 2l l9

Yo Small Boulder 9 21 15

aa % Boulder 8 JJ 0

a o/oBedrock J 10 0

Mean o/osurface fines 13.9 I 1.0 9.7

#Large woody debris/l00 m 7.9 4.9 4.3 " Culgrrtutudby multiplying the total trout densityby the percentof fish capturedthat werebull trout.

27 Figure7. Relationshipbetween trout speciescomposition (1995, 1996, or 1997)and maximum summer streamtemperature in 1997in themainstem of the Little Lost River,

{Rainbow QBrook EBull

q - O

o\

16 18 20 Maximum SummerWater Temperature(C)

Figure8. Relationshipbetween trout speciescomposition (1995, 1996, or 1997)and maximum summer streamtemperature n 1997in Wet Creek.

)(Rainbow EBull

a - O

Maximum SummerWater Temperature(C) 28 Table 7. Relationshipbetween trout speciescomposition (1995, 1996,or 1997) andmaximum summer stream temperaturein 1997 in the mainstem of the Little Lost River.

Maximum Year Summer Stream Population SpeciesComposition Reach Temperature(" C) (1997)" Data Rainbow Brook Bull Collected Above Smithie Fork 12.5 r995 0 0 100 Near Moonshine 13.4 1997 26 0 74 Below Timber Creek 15.1 1997 48 0 s2

Above SquawCreek 18.1 r997 B7 11 J Below Summit Creek 19.2 r997 6r 34 5 Above Summit Creek 23.7 1997 7T T4 14 u Stream temperature monitoring sites were not always located in the exact location of the population monitoring sites but should reflect maximum summer temperatures experienced at the population monitoring sites.

TableB. Relationshipbetween trout species composition (1995, 1996, or 1997)and maximum summer streamtemperature in 1997in Wet Creek'

Maximum Year Summer Stream Population SpeciesComposition Reach Temperature("C) (1997) Data Collected Rainbow Bull Above Hilts Creek tr.7 1996 37 63

-a Above Coal Creek 15.6 r996 t) 2',1 At Forest Boundary 17.8 1996 96 4 Above Dry Creek 2r.3 t997 100 0 rstream temperature monitoring sites were not always located in the exact location of the population monitoring sites but should reflect maximum summer temperatures experienced at the population monitoring sites.

29 springs. Thewatertemperatureatbothofthesespringswas13'ConJune 6,1997 andMay 19,1998. Similar conditions occur in other streamssuch as Summit Creek and Horse Creek. Downstreamof thesesprings and in other reaches lacking groundwater influence, extreme winter conditions (freezing or near freezing temperaturesand anchor ice) may preclude the successfulincubation of bull trout eggs. However, further researchis neededbefore any definite conclusionscan be drawn.

Population Trend

Limited datapreclude determining a populationtrend for bull trout in most of the drainage. However, sufficient datahave beencollected to determinea trend for the mainstemabove Summit Creek. Becausenot enough fish of each species were captured to calculate a speciesdensity estimate, it was estimated by multiplying the percent speciescomposition by the total salmonid density. Although these data should be viewed cautiously due to differencesin samplingtimes, temperatureregimes, and natural fluctuations, they indicate that bull trout in this sectionhave declinedsince 1984. Between 1984 and 1993,the number of bull trout per km of streamdeclined 9lo/o inthemainstem betweenSummit Creekand the Forestboundary (Figure 9, Table 9). In the mainstembetween the Forestboundary and Smithie Fork, the number of bull trout per km of stream declined 62o/obetween1987 and 1995(Figure 10, Table 10). Thesedeclines were likely the result of low water resulting from drought, high streamtemperatures resulting from drought and degradedhabitat conditions below Warm Creek, and angler harvest.

Despite declinesin the late 1980's and early 1990's,bull trout numbersin the mainstemappear to be increasing. Sampling in 1997indicates that bull trout have increasedin both sectionsof the mainstem(Figure 9 and 10, Table 9 and 10). It is likely that subsidingdrought conditions,habitat improvementsfrom changes in management, and the closure of bull trout to harvest in 1994 have resulted in increasesin bull trout densities.

Although bull trout numbers have increasedin the mainstem, they appearto be declining in other areas. As previously mentioned,bull trout have beenfound historically in Big SpringsCreek, Squaw Creek (Wet Creek drainage),and the lower reachof the Little Lost River. Creel censusdataindicates bull trout were present in Big SpringsCreek as recentas 1977(Appendix C). However, additional creel censusdata, which was completedin 1978, 1979, and 1987(Appendix C), and electrofishingdata from 1987(Corsi and Elle 1989) and 1993 (presentstudy) indicatebull trout areno longer presentin this tributary. Similarly, Corsi and Elle (1989) found small numbersof bull trout electrofishing2 sites in lower Squaw Creek (Wet Creek drainage)in1987.However,bulltroutwerenotfoundelecffofishingthesesame2sitesin7992.In1983,bull trout were found in the mainstemnear Howe (Corsi et al. 1986). However, the annualdiversion of this reach for winter flood control since i985 has renderedthis portion of stream of little value to bull trout.

Bull trout appearto have beencompletely extirpatedfrom Dry Creek. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River valley in 1910,indicated that in the 1920'she caught only "dolly varden" in Dry Creek Reservoir and Dry Creek above the reservoir (personal communication). Rob Stauffer, an arearesident, indicated that in the early 1960's"dolly varden" oomprised about l\Yo of the fish he caught in Dry Creek (personal communication). He also reported catching brook trout and rainbow trout in Dry Creek. However, bull trout were not caughtby anglersthat were surveyedon Dry Creek in 1969, 1977, 1978, and 1979 (USR file data,Appendix C). Likewise, bull trout were not found in Dry Creek in electrofishingsampling in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989)or 1995(present study).

30 springs, Thewatertemperatureatbothofthesespringswas13'ConJune6, 1997andMay19,1998. Similar conditions occur in other streams such as Summit Creek and Horse Creek. Downstream of these springs and in other reaches lacking groundwater influence, extreme winter conditions (freezing or near freezing temperaturesand anchor ice) may preclude the successfulincubation of bull trout eggs. However, further research is neededbefore any definite conclusions can be drawn.

Population Trend

Limited datapreclude determining a populationtrend for bull trout in most of the drainage. However, sufFrcient data have been collected to determine a trend for the mainstem above Summit Creek. Because not enough fish of each species were captured to caloulate a speciesdensity estimate, it was estimated by multiplying the percent speciescomposition by the total salmonid densify. Although these data should be viewed cautiously due to differences in sampling times, temperature regimes, and natural fluctuations, they indicate that bull trout in this sectionhave declinedsince 1984. Betweenl9S4 and L993,the number of bull trout per km of stream declined 9 1% in the mainstem between Summit Creek and the Forest boundary (Figure 9, Table 9). In the mainstembetween the Forestboundary and Smithie Fork, the number of bull trout per km of streamdeclined 62Yobe,tween 1987 and 1995(Figure 10, Table 10). Thesedeclines were likely the result of low water resulting from drough! high stream temperaturesresulting from drought and degraded habitat oonditions below Warm Creek, and angler harvest.

Despite declinesin the late 1980's and early 1990's,bull trout numbersin the mainstemappear to be increasing. Sampling n lggT indicatesthat bull trout have increasedin both sectionsof the mainstem(Figure 9 and 10, Table i and 10). It is likely that subsidingdrought conditions,habitat improvementsfrom changes in management, and the closure of bull trout to harvest in 1994 have resulted in increasesin bull trout densities.

Although bull trout numbers have increasedin the mainstem, they appeatto be declining in other areas. As previously mentioned,bull hout have beenfound historically in Big Springs Creek, Squaw Creek (Wet Creek drunage),andthe lower reachofthe Little Lost River, Creel censusdata indicates bull trout were present in Big Springs Creek as recent as 1977 (Appendix C). However, additional creel censusdata, which ias completea rn Wt, 1979, and 1987(Appendix C), and electrofishingdata from 1987(Corsi and Elle 1989) and 1993 (presentstudy) indicatebull trout are no longer presentin this tributary. Similarly, Corsi and in lower Squaw Creek (Wet Creek fne ipAO; found small numbers of bull trout electrofishing 2 sites drainage)11_lg87. However,bulltroutwerenotfoundelecffofishingthese same?sitesin 1992.In1983,bull trout were found in the mainstem near Howe (Corsi et al. 1986). However, the annual diversion of this reach for winter flood control since 1985 has renderedthis portion of streamof little value to bull trout'

Bull trout appeartohave beencompletely extirpatedfrom Dry Creek. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River valley in 1910,indicated that in the 1920'she caughtonly "dolly varden" in Dry Creek Reservoir and Dry Creek above the reservoir (personal communication). Rob Stauffer, an afea resident, indicated that in the early 1960's"dolly varden" comprised about l\Yo of the fish he caught in Dry Creek (personalcommunication). He also reportedcatching brook trout and rainbow trout in Dry Creek' However, bull trout were not caughtby anglersthat were surveyedon Dry Creek in 7969,1977, 1978, and 1979 (USR f1e data,Appendix C). Likewise, bull toout were not found in Dry Creek in eleckofishing sampling in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989) or 1995 (presentstudy).

30 Figure9. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost Riverbetween 1984 and 1997 (Elle et al. 1987, Corsiand Elle 1989,present study).

Little Lost River between Summit Creek and Forest Boundary

300

250

200

= 150 a

100

50

0 r988

Figure 10. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost Riverbetween 1987 and 1997 (Elle et al. 1987, Corsiand Elle 1989,present study).

Little Lost River between Forest Boundary and Smithie Fork

800

'100

600

500

J 400 q

300

200

100

0 t987 I99l 31 Tabte 9. Comparison of estimated trout/km in the Little Lost River between the Forest boundary and Summit Creek between 1984 and 1997 (Elle et al. 1987,Corsi and Elle 1989,present study).

SamplingDate Total trout/kmu Rainbow trout/km Brook trout/km Bull trouVkm July 1997 24s 208 l6 21

August1993 227 203 20 +n Iuly 1987 226 150 52 24 July 1986 189 123 2l 45

July 1985 r76 83 JZ 61 October1984 24s 173 27 45 n This number representsthe sum of the individual speciesdensities and may different slightly from the actual mean density due to rounding errors.

Table 10. Comparisonof estimatedtrout/km in the Little Lost River from the Forest boundary to Smithie Fork between 7987 and 1997(Corsi and Elle i989, presentstudy).

SamplingDate Total trout/km" Rainbow trout/km Brook trout/km Bull trout/km

Iuly 1997 527 366 74 87

August/ 594 499 JJ 62 September1995

Ivly 1981 675 +zJ 90 162 -t6is number representsthe sum of the individual speciesdensities and may different slightly from the actual mean density due to rounding errors.

a^ Similarly, bull trout havenearly disappearedfrom Big Creek. Ted Rothwell, a longtime local resident, fishedBig Creekin the 1940's,1950's, and 1960's(personal communication). When he first beganfishing the sfream inthe 1940's,most of the fish caughtwere bull trout up to 450 mm in length. A similar account is made by Albert Fullmer, h. (arearesident,personal oommunication). In the 1950's,most of the fish he caught in Lower Big Creek Lake (beaver pond) were bull trout up to 1.8 kg. A photograph taken by Mr. Fullmer showsseveral bull trout approximately300 to 500 mm in lengththat were caughtin Lower Big Creek Lake (beaverpond) on June4, 1958. Although the number of bull trout caughtby anglersin Big Creek varied in the 1970's,creel censusdata indicatethat in l974bull trout comprised 63%oof the fish caught by anglers in Big Creek (Appendix C). In 1978, brook trout were introduced into the stream. By 1990, brook trout comprised95Yo of the fish caughtby anglersin the large beaverpond nearthe headof the stream(Lower Big Creek Lake) (Gam ett 1990a). During the curent study,brook trout comprisedup to 77%oof the fish captured greaterthan I 00 mm in length. Of the 5 samplingsites in Big Creek (401 m total length) no bull trout smaller than 100 mm were found and only 2 bull trout over 100 mm were captured. Sevenother fish appearedto be brook trout x bull trout hybrids. Similar bull trout declinesassociated with brook trout appearto be occuring in Mill Creek and lower Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon drainage)'

Threats to Bull Trout Populations

Severalfactors appgarto affect the distribution andlorabundance of bull trout in the Little Lost River drainage. Theseinclude high streamtemperatures; hybridization, competition, and predationby exotic brook trout; disruption ofmigratory ooridors; sediment;loss through inigation ditches;artificial migration bariers; angler harvest;and lossof cover andhabitatcomplexity. All of theseissues are discussedbelow.

In addition, Rieman and Mclntyre (1993) demonstratedthat other factorssuch as stochastic(random) and geneticprocesses are important to the long term persistenceof bull trout populations. Although these factors are not assessedin this paper,they will need to be addressedto ensurethe long term survival of the population.

Stream Temperature - Although severalfactors appeartobelimitingthe abundanceand distribution of bull trout in the drainage,high streamtemperatures appear to be the most significant. A literature review by Rieman and Mclntyre (1993) found that water temperaturesgreater than about 15'C appearto limit bull trout distribution. As previously discussed,data from the curuentstudy supportthis conclusion. Stream temperaturedata collectedin 1997indicates that approximately 50Yoof all fish bearing streamshad stream temperaturesexceeding 15'C for 50 days or more. Among thosereaches experiencing this degreeof heating were the entire mainstemdownstream from Warm Creek, all of Big SpringsCreek, and approximately 50Yo of Wet Creek. Although many streamreaches experience water temperaturesexceeding those preferred by bull trout, the degreethat managementactivities have alterednatural streamtemperature regimes is not clear.

Temperature datafrom severalyears are available for some locations,including the mainstem at the Forestboun dary andaboveSummit Creek. Data were collectedfrom these2 sitesin 1987, 1988, 1994,1995, and 7997(Appendices D and E). Thesedata indicate that maximum streamtemperatures at both stationswere consistently above l5"C during the summer and often reachedabove 20"C. During 1994, a hot, dry year, streamtemperatures at the Forestboundary exoeeded 20"C for 17 days but did not exceed25"C. However, in the mainstem above Summit Creek, streamtemperatures exceeded 20" C fot 55 days and exceeded 25" C for 10 days. Further down the mainstem, cooler waters from Wet Creek resulted in lower temperatures. The maximum streamtemperature recorded in this streamreach was 27"C atthe old gauging station in July 1994.

aa JJ The high streamtemperatures in the reachbelow Warm Creek appearto be a result of poor ripaian and stream habitat conditions compounded by low stream flows as a result of several years of drought. SCS and BLM (1985) indicate thataftre burnedthe reachof the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) from Summit Creek to the Forest boundary. According to this report, the upper portion of this reach experienced good regeneration of riparian species,but heavy grazing along the lower portion did not allow woody riparian speciesto reestablish. Resulting streambank erosionhas led to an unstablechannel and stream meandering (SCS and BLM 1985). In turn, the stream'swidth to depthratio hasincreased resulting in an unnaturally wide, shallow stream.

This condition has likely affectedsffeam temperature in at least3 ways, First limited woody riparian vegetationalong the lower portion ofthis reachhas resulted in a lack of streamshading. Second,the increased width of the streamhas resultedin a larger stream surface area increasingthe surfaoe areato volume ratio. Subsequently,a greaterpercentage ofthe streamis exposedto solar radiation. Third, the increasedstream width has reducedstream velocities. When theseconditions were combined with low flows resulting from severalyears ofdrought, extremelyhigh streamtemperatures resulted. Streamtemperatures likely would have remained more tolerable for bull trout had these conditions occurred independentof each other.

The poor condition of the habitat in and along the mainstembelow Warm Creek hasbeen recognized. In 1987,a streamimprovement project was implementedalong this reachas mitigation for flood control 'Little measuresnear Howe (See Lost River, Mainstem' for a complete description of the flood control and mitigation projeot.) In 1993,the riparian, ohannel,and bank conditions along the project areahad greatly improved (IFD file data). As conditions along this reach continue to improve, stream temperaturesshould decline to limits more acceptableby bull trout.

Hybridization. Competition. and Predation blExotic Brook Trout - Exotic brook trout appear to pose a significantthreatto bull trout in the Liftle Lost River drainage. Hybridization, predation, and competition betweenbull trout and introducedspecies can negatively impact bull trout populations (Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Theseauthors believed thathybridization betweenbrook trout and bull trout could lead to the elimination of bull trout. In SouthFork Lolo Creek, Montana,the rapid displacementof bull trout by brook trout was accompaniedby extensivehybridization betweenthe 2 species(Leary et al. 1993). Similarly, Mullan et al. (1992) believed that hybridization between brook trout and bull trout may have led to the elimination of bull trout in some streamsin Washington.

In the Little Lost River drainage,the extirpation or decline of bull trout in some streamshas been accompaniedbytheintroductionand/orexpansionofbrooktrout. Theapparentextirpationofbulltroutfrom Dry Creek appearslinked to the introduction of brook trout. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River in 1910, reportedcatching only "dolly varden" in Dry Creek Reservoirand Dry Creek aboveDry Creek Reservoirinthelg20's(personalcommunication).AtsometimebrooktroutwereintroducedintoDryCreek. By the early 1960's, "dolly varden" comprised only about 10% of the fish caught by Rob Stauffer, an area resident(personal communication). However, no bull trout were found in Dry Creek in creel censuswork completedby the Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game in 1969,1977,1978, and 1979 (Appendix C) or in electrofishing sampling completedin 1987(Corsi and Elle 1989). During the presentstudy, none of the 159 fish collected in Dry Creek were bull trout (157 were brook trout and 2 were rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrids). Likewise, the introduction of brook trout into Big Creek in 1978 coresponds with the near disappearanceof bull trout in that stream. Similar declinesappear to be occuring in Mill Creek and Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon drainage). If these trends continue, it appearsbull trout will disappearfrom these streams. Furthermore,an expansionof brook trout into additional bull trout streamssuch as Smithie Fork or Wet Creek may result in the elimination of bull trout in additional streams.

34 The early ageat which brook trout reachsexual maturity is likely one reasonbrook trout may replace bull trout. An extensiveliterature review by Rieman and Mclntyre (1993) indicated bull trout reach sexual maturity in 5 to 7 yearcalthough maturation as early as 3 years has been reported (see Scott and Crossman 1973). On the other hand, brook trout may mature as early as age one (presentstudy, Corsi and Elle 1989). During the presentstudy, age atmaturity for brook trout in Mill Creek and Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon drainage)was determined. Sexualmaturity was determinedby analysisof the gonads. Age was determined through scaleanalysis. Ninety-one brooktrout from Mill Creekand 43 from SquawCreek were studied. Male brook trout beganmaturing at age one in both streams. All of the fish that could be distinguished as males were mature by age 2. Female fish also beganmaturing at age one in both streams. Over half were mature by age 2 and all by age 3. If bull trout in these streamsdo not reach maturity until age 3 or 4, the earlier maturity of brook trout could lead to a decline in bull trout, particularly when combined with hybridization.

Hybridization is likely another factor leading to bull trout declines. Althoughhybridization in the Little Lost River drainagedoes not appearwidespread, it doesappear to be a threatto bull trout in Big Creek, lower Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon),and Mill Creek. During the presentstudy, fish appearingto be brook trout x bull trout hybrids were found in lower and mid SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon drainage),Mill Creek, the mainstem near Mill Creek, and the upper reachof Big Creek. These same stream reachesalso had very few fish appearingto be pure bull trout. A fish that appearedto be a brook trout x bull trout hybrid measuring 455 mmwas capturednear the headof Big Creek in August 1994. In 1997,an angler caught a 635 mm,3.9 kg fish from Big CreekBeaver Pondthat appearedto be a brook trout x bull trout hybrid. I'his was confirmed by genetic testing at the University of Montana.

The extent of predation on bull trout by other speciesin the Little Lost River drainage is not clear. Rainbow trout and brook trout do ttilize other fish for food (Simpson and Wallace 1982, Wydoski and Whitney 1979). Although the extent is not known, it is likely bull trout fry andjuveniles are utilized by brook trout and rainbow trout, particularly in spawning and nursery streams'

The extent of interspecific competition betweenbull trout, brook trout, and rainbow trout, and the impact on bull trout populationsin the drainage,is not known. A literature review by Rieman and Mclntyre (1993) found that declinesin bull trout populationshave been associatedwith the introduction of nonnative fishes such as rainbow trout and brown trout. However, the decline in bull trout abundanceaccompanied by an increasein rainbow trout abundancein the mainstemLittle Lost River is likely explainedas a function of higher stream temperaturesduring drought selecting againstbull trout rather than direct competition from rainbow trout.

Disruption of Migratory Corridors - Migratory coridors are streamreaches that connectmainstem adult habitat reachesto headwater spawning and nursery sffeams. The most important migratory corridors in the Little Lost River drainage are the Little Lost River between Summit Creek and Smithie Fork, and Wet Creek from the Little Lost River to Big Creek. Bull trout appearto be using both of these reachesto move between the mainstem and headwaterstreams.

Although the movement of fluvial bull trout through both of these reacheshas been affected, these problems are being rectified. An aerial photograph taken on July 20,1959, indicatesthat at approximately 8 k* b"lo* Warm Creek, all of the Little Lost River was diverted acrossthe alluvial fan into Summit Creek. This appearsto haveresulted in the completedewatering of approximately5 km of the Little Lost River above Summit Creek. This was likely doneto reducewater loss in the main channel. Unless fluvial bull trout could negotiatethis route, or if they migratedat a time when the diversionwas not being used,they would havebeen blocked from spawningtributaries in Sawmill Canyon. However, this diversion was discontinuedafter about 1960 (James Andreason, local landowner, personal communication).

35 In the 1970's,a diversion structurewas constructedon Wet Creek 1.5 km abovethe Little Lost River (JamesAndreason, landowner, personal communication). This structuremay have been a complete barrier to upstreamfish migration (Pat Koelsch, BLM, personalcommunication). If so, it would not be possiblefor fluvial bull trout in the Little Lost River or Wet Creek below the diversion to accessheadwater spawning tributaries in Wet Creek. In l992,the BLM, in cooperationwith the Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game and the Challis National Forest, constructeda fish ladder at this diversion to provide fish passage.

Loss Through Irrigation Ditches - Loss of bull trout through irrigation ditchesmay negatively affect populations. In the Little Lost River drainage,there are numerousdiversions that divert all or a portion of the stream for irrigation and/or hydroelectric uses. However, the number of bull trout lost through irrigation ditchesis not known.

The extent of this problem could easily be assessedby sampling irrigation ditches following the closure of the head-gate.If bull trout loss is significant, self-cleaningscreens could be installedto eliminate the problem. This methodhas been used successfully in Montanato preventbull trout lossto irrigation ditches (Swanberg1997).

Artificial Migration Barriers - Artificial bariers prevent the natural movement of fish. These barriers may prevent bull trout from moving into streamreaches where they have been extirpated, prevent genetic exchangebetween populations, and preclude the movement of fluvial fish. In the Little Lost River drainage,potential artificialbarriers include diversion structures,culverts, and dewateredor degradedstream channels. A preliminary assessmentsuggests bridges and culverts have not seriously impacted bull trout populations in the drainage. However, dewateredstream ohannels are a significant factor. For example, the diversion of lower Williams Creek has resultedin the isolation of bull trout in that stream. An effort should be made to identify each artificial migration barrier and correct the problem if possible.

Angler Harvest - Angler harvesthas likely impactedbull trout populations in the Little Lost River drainage. Prior to 1994, anglerscould harvestup to 6 bull trout per day. In 1987,bull trout comprised 530lo of the fish caughtby anglersin the Sawmill Creek reachof the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989). Seventy-onepercent of the bull trout caught were harvested. In 7994,brtll trout harvest was closed in the drainage.

However, illegal angler harvestmay still be impacting bull trout populations. Bull trout and brook trout can be difficult to distinguish. This likely results in anglers accidentally harvesting bull trout. To overcomethis problem, the Forest Serviceand Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game have initiated education efforts to help the public distinguish the 2 species. This involved a kiosk display in Mackay, placement of large signs at the Forestboundary in Sawmill Canyon and at the Timber Creek Campground,placement of small signs at key locations throughout the drainage, and distribution of bull trout pamphlets. However, discussionswith anglers suggestthat many are still not able to identify bull trout (personal observation)'

Loss of Cover and Ilabitat Complexitv - Bull trout require a high level of stream ohannel complexity, complex cover being an important element(Rieman and Mclntyre 1993). Stream channelsand corr"i itt most headwaterstreams appear to be moderately to highly complex. Headwatertributary streamssuch as Smithie Fork have particularly complex cover and streamchannels, large woody debrisbeing an important component. On the Little Lost River between Warm Creek and Summit Creek past channelizing, heavy grazing,stream bank erosion,and streammeandering have led to a relatively homogeneousstream ohannel with little to no cover. However, this situation is being corected through restoration efforts.

36 Sediment - Sedimentis likely impacting bull trout spawningsuccess in somestreams. R1/R4 stream habitat data indicates that surface frnes are less than25o/oin most bull trout spawning streams(Appendix F). However, some bull trout spawning streams such as Redrook Creek, Wet Creek upstream from the old diversion aboveHilts Creek, and Badger Creek aboveBunting Canyon Creekhad surfacefines of 65%,52yo, and37Yo,respectively (Appendix F). This level of sedimentis likely having a negative impact on bull trout spawning success.In addition, other streamsthat could potentially supportbull trout spawningalso have high sedimentlevels. For example,bull trout were not found in Basin Creek andjuvenile bull trout were not found in Quigley Creek. Basin Creek (which also hashigh streamtemperatures) had 68% surfacefines and Quigley Creek had 32o/osurface fines (Appendix F).

Brook Trout

Distribution

Although brook trout are widely distributedin the drainage(Figure 11), they are only abundant in a few streamreaches. Data indicatethat brook trout occupy approximately 140km of stream in the drainage. During the presentstudy, brook trout were found in Big Creek, Big Springs Creek, Dry Creek, an unnamed tributary to Meadow Creek, Mill Creek, Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon), an unnamedtributary to Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon),North Fork Squaw Creek,upper Summit Creek,Uncle Ike Creek, Wet Creek, and portions of the mainstem. Brook trout comprised2l%oor more of the salmonidscaptured in upper Big Creek, Dry Creek, the mainstemnear Mill Creek, an unnamedtributary to Meadow Creek,Mill Creek, lower Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon),an ururamedtributary to SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon),the lower reachof North Fork Squaw Creek, and Uncle Ike Creek'

The rangeof brook trout hasincreased within the drainageduring the last25 years. In 1970,Andrews (1972) sampledthe mainstemnear Moonshine Creek,near the Forestboundary, near Summit Creek,near Big SpringsCreek, and nearHowe, and did not find any brook trout. Likewise, brook trout were not caught in the SawmillCreeksectionofthemainsteminl8hoursof anglingeffortinI970 (USRfiledata). In 197L,2brook trout were collected in200 m of the mainstemnear the Forest boundary (USR file data). In the 1980's and 1990's,brook trout were found throughoutmost of the mainstem(Corsi et al. 1986,Corsi and Elle 1986,Corsi and Elle 1989, presentstudy). Similarly, creel censusdata indicate that brook trout were not present in Big Creekuntil the late 1970's (seeAppendix C). Brook trout were introducedinto Big Creek in 1978. In the sectionsof Big Creek sampledduring the presentstudy, brook trout comprised l9Yo to 77Yoof the salmonids captured.

Despite recent expansions,the upper limit of brook trout distribution in Sawmill Canyon appearsto haveremained stable since 1987. Data collectedby Corsi and Elle (1989) indicatedthatin 7987 the upper limit of brook trout distribution in Sawmill Canyonwas in the mainstembetween Bear Creek and Moonshine Creek. During the presentstudy, the upper limit was in the mainstembetween Mill Creek and Timber Creek, still within those boundsobserved in 1987.

Although the distribution of brook trout has recently expanded,high streamtemperatures and steep sfreamgradients may be limiting further brook trout expansionin the drainage. Fausch(1989) found that in Rocky Mountain streamscontaining sympatric populations of brook trout and cutthroat trout, brook trout generally cornprised a greaterpercentage of the speciescomposition at low stream gradients. Similarly, Areaof Detail N

"q

) '/ ^* $, ,f)

rl f Mount)F _- ../ Breitenbach # ] -s ) t1l s

*r*# srf Fak d -*Satfi*'-bd* { ?vP o Mackay \\k, I

Scale 5 0 5 l0Kilometers ffi

Legend o Howe rf LakdRseNoif i1 King+ _ l, l

38

Fieure 11. Current distribuLion of brook trout in Lhe Lit.tle IosL River drainage (present studY). Chisholm and Hubert ( i 9 86) found that gradient had a negative influence on brook trout abundancein streams containing only brook trout. Mullan etal. (1992) believed streamtemperatures influenced whether rainbow trout or brook trout prevailed in a stream. They believedthat when meansurnmer temperature exceeded l8'C rainbow trout would prevail, andtemperatures below 15'C would favor brook trout. Data from the Little Lost River suggestthat both streamtemperature and stream gradient affect the abundanceand/or distribution of brook trout. However, further study is neededbefore the relationship can be defined.

Maturity

Brook trout in SquawCreek and Mill Creekbegin maturingatage one. During the presentstudy, age at maturity for brook trout in Mill Creek and Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon drainage) was determined. Sexual maturity was determined by analysis of the gonads. Age was determined through scale analysis. Ninety-one brook trout from Mill Creek and43 from Squaw Creek were studied. Male brook trout began maturing at age one in both streams.All ofthe fish that could be distinguishedas maleswere matureby age 2. Female fish also beganmaturing at ageone in both streams.Over half were mature by age2 and all by age 3. No brook trout over 3 years of age were found. Similarly, Corsi and Elle (1989) believed thatmany brook trout in Medicine Lodge Creek were mature at age one (114 mm), and most were matureby age2 (l62mm). In the rrpperBig Lost River, brook trout beganmaturing at age2 (1 16 mm), and most were mature at age3 (150mm).

Growth

Brook trout in the Little Lost River drainageexperience growth rates similar to brook trout in Medicine Lodge Creek (Table 11). Brook trout over 400 mm havereportedly been caught by anglersin Dry Creek, and a365 mmbrook trout was capturedin the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989). The largestbrook trout capturedduring the curent study was a 301 mm fish from Dry Creek 150m abovethe Forest boundary. Another fish measuring 455mm that appearedto be a brook trout x bull trout hybrid was capturedin Big Creek immediatelybelow the large beaverpond nearthe headof the stream. In 1997,an angler caught a 635 mm, 3 .9 kg fish from Big CreekBeaver Pond that appearedto be a brook trout x bull trout hybrid. This was confirmed by genetictesting at the University of Montana. The oldestreported brook trout from the Little Lost River drainage is age 3 (Table i 1)'

Rainbow Trout

Distribution

Rainbowtrout arethe mostwidely distributedfish speciesin the Little Lost River. Datacollected duringthe presentstudy indicate rainbow trout oaaupyapproximately 27 4 km of streamand are found in most streamsin the drainage(Figure l2). Theywere also reported caught by anglersin Mill CreekLake duringa voluntarycreel survey conducted by the ForestService in 1994(LRRD file data)'

39 Table 11. Comparisonof brook trout lengthsat annulusfrom the Little Lost River drainagewith brook ffout from other systems.

Lensth at Annulus

Location N Source

Mill Creek 91 123 157 186 presentstudy

Little Lost River (Sawmill n/a 130 213 253 Corsiet al.1986 Creek)

Summit Creek (grazed) 22 ls6 218 247 Corsiet al. 1986

Summit Creek (ungrazed) l0 126 179 27r Corsiet al. 1986

ta Squaw Creek +J t2t 172 21.3 presentstudy

Medicine Lodge Creek l2 114 162 Corsiand Elle 1989

Big Lost, West Fork 42 92 142 181 228 367 Corsi1989

Big Lost, Summit Creek 36 99 149 186 Corsi1989

Big Lost, East Fork t4 94 143 186 Corsi1989

Lower Big Lost 10 164 262 360 40r Corsiand Elle 1989

Lawrence Creek, WI n/a 94 170 208 292 353 366 Wydoskiand Whitney1979

40 Areaof Detail N

OBoise O ldahoFalls

Mount *l_- Brcitenbach g

sF. s"F ,ttt1l -.d

w* kat "#>-

o Mackay

Scale 0 5 l0Kilometers 5r Legend @Howe i LakeJR€smir l, I XinS+ tt 1%, aV\ Peranlgl stream Mounlain .crr&r. $q$ Ralnbm Trot Distribuliq " a Rdnbw Trat Di*ibution (Lake Populatim) o Moore How - Rd.o 41,

Ffuzure L2. Current distribution of rainbow trouL in the Little Lost River drainage (present sLudy, Gamett L990a). Data indicate that since 1987,rainbow trout in Sawmill Canyonhave expandedinto arms previously occupiedby only bull trout. In 19?0and 1987,only bull ffoutwere collected in the Sawmill Canyon drainage above Mill Creek (Andrews l97|,Corsiand Elle 1989). Specifically, nei*ter Andrews (1970) nor Corsi and Elle (1989) collected rainbow trout in the mainstem near Moonshine Creek. However, rainbow trout comprised26Yo and l3Yo of the salmonidscaptured in this reach in 1995 and 1997,respectively. Likewise, bull trout were the only salmonidcaptured from lower Timber Creek in 1987(Corsi and Elle 1989). In 1995 reach,respectively- These and 1997, runbow trout comprised74Yo and SYo af the salmonidscollected in this trou-t between 1.9 km and 6'6 km up the data suggest that between 1987 and 1995, rainbow ldvanced mainstem and into the lowerreaches ofTimberCreek. Possible changesin strearntemperatures resulting from drought and a large fire in the headwatersof the drainage may explain this expansion. If so, the upper limit of rainbow trout distribution may contract if stream ternperaturescool.

Growth

Rainbow ffout growth in the mainstem ofttre Little Lost River is similar to that exhibited by rainbow trout in the upper Big Lost River (Table l2). As expected,growth in the upper porfion of the drainage is slower relative to that in the lower drainage.

Table 12. Comparison of rainbow trout lengths at annulus from the Little Lost River drainage with rainbow trout of other systems.

Lensthat Annulus

Location 5 Source "UpperLittle Lost" andSawmill nla 78 139 t97 Corsiand Elle 1989 Creek Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) 27 79 138 202 borsi et al. 1986 SummitCreek (ungrazed) 40 104 158 r97 Corsiet al. 1986 Little Lost River nla 97 171 229 27r Corsi andElle 1989 Wet Creek 89 132 209 254 Bruhn 1990 Big Lost River, WestFork 9 99 163 220 303 374 Corsi1989 Big Lost River, Twin BridgesCreek 12 89 132 186 L+J Corsi1989 Big Lost River, Lower EastFork 8 9l r42 196 258 349 Corsi 1989 Birch Creek,Lower 29 92 157 202 251 Corsiand Elle 1989 Birch Creek,Upper 98 94 i50 197 241 Corsiand Elle 1989 FishLake, UT n/a. 74 191 315 391

42 Shorthead Sculpin

The shorthead sculpin appearsto be the only sculpin speciespresent in the drainage. During the presentstudy, 45 sculpin were collectedand preserved from 8 locations. All of thesefish were later identified as shorthead(Table 13, Figure 13). Sculpin were also collectedfrom the Little Lost River drainageby Carl Hubbs inl934(UNIMZ), Simpsonin1949 (IMMZ), andAndrews(1972)in1970.All ofthe sculpininthese collections were shorthead(Table 13, Figure 13). Likewise, Simpsonand Wallace (1982) reportedshorthead as the only sculpin speciesin the Little Lost River drainage. The largest voucher specimencollected for identification during the presentstudy was a 133mm specimenfrom Wet Creek abovethe Forest boundary.

The shortheadsculpin is widely distributedin the drainagebelow 2,280 m elevation. Sculpin were not found abovethis point an;.wherein the drainagealthough they had accessto higher streamreaches. This suggests some factor or oombination of factors is limiting their distribution. Data from Sawmill Canyon suggestthat streamgradients greater than about4o/o restrict the distribution of shortheadsculpin. Sculpin were absentfrom all streamsnot currently connectedto the drainagenet (Dry Creek,Uncle Ike Creek, SouthCreek, North Creek, CedarRun Creek,Deep Creek,Bell Mountain Creek, and Mahogany Creek) except Williams Creek and Horse Creek.

Cutthroat Trout

Cutthroattrout havebeen introduced throughout the drainage.The earliestcutthroat trout introduction in the drainage may have been in Dry Creek in 1915. It is difficult to determine where fish were stocked before 1953 becauseintroductions prior to this time arelisted only by hatcheryand/or counfy. This makes it difficult to distinguish 2 water bodies bearing the samename. However, state stocking records from 19I 5 indicate that on June 1, 25,000"natives" (likely cutthroattrout), 10,000brook trout, and 55,000rainbow trout were given to E.H. Motts in Mackay for "Dry Creek." The June2,1975 edition of the Mackay Miner (a local newspaperbased in Mackay) indicatesthat fish had been planted in Dry Creek. Since the Dry Creek in the upper Little Lost River drainageis the only Dry Creek in either the Little Lost River or Big Lost River, it is possible these fish were introduced into the Dry Creek in the upper Little Lost River. Cutthroat trout had definitely been introduced into the drainageby 1936 when26,2$0 cutthroat trout were introduced into the Little Lost River. Cutthroattrout were specifically introducedinto Big Creek and Wet Creek by atleast 1947 and Dry Creek in1964. Likewise, cutthroattrouthave beenintroduced into Big CreekLake#2, CopperLake, Mill Creek Lake, Shadowlake #1, Shadowlake #2, Swaugerlake #1, and Swaugerlake#Z. ltappears that other cutthroat trout introductionsoccurred in the drainagein streamssuch as Mill Creek and Squaw Creek although this determination cannot be definite due to the method in which the introductions were recorded.

Most of the cutthroat trout introduced into the drainage have been the Yellowstone subspecies. However, westslopecutthroattroutwere introducedinto severallakes in 1988. Westslopecutthroattroutmay have also been introduced into the drainageby early settlersfrom the PahsirneroiRiver drainage.

The currentdistribution of cutthroattrout is limited primarily to mountain lakes(Figure 14). In 1994, anglersreported catching cutthroat trout in SwaugerLake#2 andMill CreekLake. The authorfound cuffhroat trout in SwaugerLake#2 in 1989,1990, and 1993; Swauger Lake #1 in 1993;and Mill CreekLake in 1989 (personal observation). Cutthroat trout are stocked regularly in each of these lakes.

43 Table 13. Summaryof sculpincollections from the Little Lost River drainage.

Sampling Number Collected Location Location Date Total Adults Juveniles Species Source

BadgerCreek T9N R27ES35 9/20195 4 J shorthead present study Big Springs T8NR28E 531 6/14/95 2 2 0 shofihead present Creek study Big Springs nearsource 7/19/34 91 n/a nla shorthead UMMZ Creek DeerCreek T8NR26E S12 6/1s19s A 4 0 shorthead present study

a HorseCreek T9NR27E S13 6/2!9s J J 0 shorthead present study Little Lost T9N R27E 7t20134 I 0 t shorthead UMMZ River Little Lost nearMoonshine 10/'/0 5 n/a n/a shorthead Andrews River Creek r972 Little Lost nearF.S. t0/70 26 n/a nla shorthead Andrews River boundary 1972 Little Lost nearSummit r0/70 2 nla nla shorthead Andrews River Creek 1972 Little Lost nearFlowe r0t70 86 nla nla shorthead Andrews River 1972 ttupper" Little Lost 9lt7l49 J nla nla shorthead UMMZ River SummitCreek T11NR26E S33 6t22t95 5 4 I shorthead present study

SummitCreek "mouthto head" n/a JZ nla nla shorthead UMMZ

TimberCreek T12NR26E 56 8/07195 6 5 t shorthead present study Wet Creek l0 km above 7120134 12 n/a nla shorthead UMMZ mouthu Wet Creek T8N R25E 52 7125195 8 6 z shorthead present study

Wet Creek 1.6km above 7/20134 10 nla nla shorthead UMMZ Big Creek

A Wet Creek T8N R25E S15 8/07/9s 13 9 a shorthead present study

a1a Total J IJ shorthead u The collection recordsrecord this site as "Big Creek,trib of Little Lost River, ca 6 mi above mouth..," However, this seemsto be presentday Wet Creek.

44 Areaof Detail N ), ,l "*7l E1 a/ I ( .qrjS/ \..9

I

.."4

do !"e

) dl "*d

+ Saddle ,{ l&urtrin

o Mackay r

Scale (collectedin 1970from 5 0 5 l0Kilometers channelthatis nowintermittent) r o oHowe Legend .A XjnS -l*- lr al Lak€tR6eryoir llouhbin .Jl FerennistSrtream

O Snctneaa Scutpin Spscim€n Coll€otion Locatbns

45

Figure 1-3. |fuseumspecimen.collect,ion sites for,shorthea{ sq:lnin in the Litt,Ie Lost River drbinage (see Appendix A for aLL sites in viLrich sculpin were found during Lhe present studY). Areaof Detail N ;li E) -") .\

I

- OBoise O ldahoFalls

tsY

j,s

u, O

Legend I utaaeservoir ^Jl PeHnial slream

O Cuttiroat Trcut Distribution i4 King +l (t I lroutrtain IGrayling Distribdion

a Guppy,cren $rcrdtail, Am€laniccoNict Cichlid , Goldfish(no longer presnt), Mozffibique Tilapia, Dstib,ution o Moore

/+6

Figure 14. Distribution of cuLthroat Lrout, grayling, guppy' green swordtail, amelanic convict cichlidr goldfish (no lon[er' preEenl)r-bnd-Mozambique tilapia in the Little T-ost River drainage (presenL study and Courtenay et aL. L9B7). The current distribution of cutthroattrout in streamsis very limited. The specieswas caught in Dry Creek by anglersin 1969, 1977, and 1978(Appendix C) and was collectedduring electrofishingsampling in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989). Although pure cutthroat trout were not found in Dry Creek during curent sampling efforts, in the fall of 1997,a Forest Serviceemployee caught what appearedto be a pure cutthroat trout in a small spring adjacent to Dry Creek above the Forest boundary. Cutthroat trout were introduced into Dry Creek in 1964 and possibly in 1915. It is likely that this introductionis the reasonfor this species occurrencein this stream,ruther than the fish being native. Migration of cutthroattrout out of SwaugerLakes into Dry Creek is unlikely (personalobservation). It is also possiblethat one of the fish collectedin Meadow Creek in 1995 was a pure cutthroat trout. Rainbow trout from Deer Creek, Big Creek, Badger Creek, and Meadow Creek showed strong evidence of hybridization with cuttl, roattrout. Severalrainbow trout from Deer Creek and Badger Creek were sentto Dr. Robert J. Behnke at Colorado StateUniversity who confirmed the influence of cutthroat trout (Dr. Robert J. Behnke, Colorado StateUniversity, personal communication).

Goppy, Green SwordtailoAmelanic Convict Cichlids, Mozambique Tilapia, and Goldfish

Severalspecies of tropical fish have beenfound in Barney Hot Springs and Barney Creek. Guppy, green swordtaiT,amelanic convict oichlids, and Mozambiquetilapia were collectedfrom Barney Hot Springs in September1985 (Courtenay et al. 1987). At this sametime, guppy, greenswordtail, and amelanic convict cichlids were collected in Barney Creek immediately below Barney Hot Springs. These 4 speciesappeared to be presentin brief checksof the hot springsin 1995 and 1997(personal observation). Although goldfish were presentin Barney Hot Springsin 1977(USR file data),none were found in 1985(Courtenay et al. 1987).

In May 1997,no fish were found in a visual survey of 50 m of Barney Creek approximately t km 'C below Barney Hot Springs,where the water temperaturewas 20 (personalobservation). This suggeststhat the distribution of thesetropical speciesis limited to Barney Hot Springsand a short reach of Barney Creek immediately below the hot springs.

Brown Trout

Brown trout have not been documented in the Little Lost River drainage. However, they have reportedly been caught in the lower portion of the drainagein recent years (Will Marcroft, LRRD, personal communication).

Golden Trout

There has been a single introduction of golden trout into the drainage. In i986, 2,000 golden trout were introduced into Nolan Lake in the Wet Creek subdrainage.Due to the small, shallow natureof the lake, it is unlikely these fish survived. In October 1990,the lake was dry (personal observation).

A'I at Mountain Whitefish

Mountain whitefish may have beenpresent in the drainageat one time. Mountain whitefish have not been found in fish collections completedin the drainage(present study, Gamettl990a, Gamett 1990b,Corsi andElle 1989,Courtenay etal. 1987,Elleet al. 1987,Corsi et al. 7986,Corsi and Elle 1986,Ball andJeppson 1978, Jeppsonand Ball 1978,Andrews I972,USR frle data,UMMZ). However, this specieswas reportedly present in the Little Lost River in the early 1900's. JamesWaymire, a local resident, indicated that the Basingerfamily and other early residentsofthe valley reportedcatching whitefish in the Little Lost River near Wet Creek (personal communication). The last whitefish that Mr. Waymire knew of in the drainage was caught in 1939. Thesefish could either have beennative or originated from introductions. On May 2,7960, 500 whitefrsh from'.MACKAY SALVAGE'were releasedinto the Little Lost River. Likely thesefish were mountain whitefish salvagedfrom the Big Lost River drainage.However, the lack of whitefish in recent sampling indicatesthe specieshas not persistedin the drainage.

Grayling

ln 1995,grayling were introducedinto Mill CreekLake. In July 1997, a243 mm grayling was caught from the lake by an angler and turned into the Lost River RangerDistrict Office (personalobservation). This speciesmay be able to reproducein the lakes inlet, and a reproducing population may become established. Outmigration from the lake into lower Mill Creek cannot occur due to the lack of an overland connection between the lake and Mill Creek.

Part 3: Subdrainages

Introduction

Between 1992 and 1997, eachsubdrainagein the Little Lost River drainagewas evaluatedfor fish. This sectionpresents an overview for the subdrainages,which are listed alphabetically. Lakes and reservoirs within these subdrainagesare discussedseparately in Part 4'

AspenCreek

Aspen Creek,a tributaryto the mainstemof the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek),is locatedin SawmillCanyon. The origin of AspenCreek could not be clearlydetermined from an aerialphotograph, but the streamappears to be approximately2.5km long. In November1995, a visual surveyof the streamwas conductedapproximately 1.5 km abovethe confluencewith theLittle Lost River. Flowswere limited, and fish habitatwas essentially nonexistent (personal observation).

48 Badger Creek

Badger Creek, located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range, is a hibutary to the mainstem ofthe Little Lost River. BadgerCreek originates at 2 springs2.4km abovethe Forestboundary and isatotalofl0.8kminlenglh. Thewatertemperatureatthese2springswas6"ConJune29,1998" Total streamlengthsonForest,BLM,andprivatelandsare 1.4,7.6, and l.Skm,respectively.Thestreamis intermittently diverted for irrigation approximately200 m abovethe Little Lost River. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Badger Creek in 1997 (Appendix E). The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on Badger Creek in 1997 (Appendix F). At this time, the inventory crew found a falls created by debris approximately 1.5 m high located on Badger Creek approximately3.0 km abovethe Little Lost River.

Both rainbow trout and brook trout have been introduced into Badger Creek. Available records indicate BadgerCreek was stockedwith rainbow trout betweenl94l and 1965. A single introduction of brook trout was made in 1943.

In 1995,rainbow trout, bull trout, and sculpin were found in Badger Creek (Table 14, AppendicesA and B). While rainbow trout occupy the entire stream,bull trout appearto be confined to the upper reaoh above the Forestboundary. Although trout densitiesnear Bunting Creek were higher in 1995 compared to 1987(Table 14),this may be due to differencesin the location and time ofthe sample. The 1995sample took place in Juneand was abovethe confluencewith Bunting Creek. The streamhere is entirely spring fed and fish may have been concentratedfor spawning. As expected,fish densitiesare higher in the canyon (above Forest boundary) comparedto the lower stream reach, where the high gradient nature of the stream limits habitat.

Table 14. Summary of electrofishing data from Badger Creek'

Species Composition (%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source 0.3km aboveprivateiBlM 7198 6.0 100 IdahoDivision of boundary Environmental Quality

3.2km aboveLittle Lost 9195 ila 100 presentstudy River 1.4km aboveForest 9195 nla 92 presentstudy boundary 0.3km aboveBunting Creeku 7197 44.4 100 presentstudy 0.3 km aboveBunting Creeku 6/95 64.1 94 presentstudy 0.3 km aboveBunting CreeK 8t87 33.1 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 " Although the 1987 site could not be relocated,the 1995site shouldbe in the samearea. b Young-of-the-year bull trout were captured.

49 In 1997,the site aboveBunting Creekwas resampled(Table 14,Appendices A andB). Rainbow trout and bull trout young-of-the-year were found.

In 1998, the Idaho Division of Environmental Quality sampled a 100 m section of Badger Creek located 300 m above the private/BlM boundary (Table l4). As in 1995, only rainbow trout were found.

Sculpinwere found atthe location3.2km abovethe Little Lost River in 1995(Appendix A). Four of thesefish were collected,preserved, and later identified as shorthead(Table l4). The lack of sculpin at the upper 2 sampling sites suggestssculpin distribution is limited to the streambelow the canyon mouth.

Barney Creek (Including Barney Hot Springs)

Barney Creek, locatedin the upper, central portion of the Little Lost River Valley, is a tributary to Summit Creek. BarneyHot Springs,apool approximately15 m wide and maximum depthof I m, is the point of origin for Barney Creek. The stream flows for 5.0 km to Summit Creek. In September 1985, the water temperaturealong the edgeof Barney Hot Springswas?7"C (Courtenayet al. 1987). On June20,l996,the temperatureat the outflow of the pool was 28"C. The water temperatureon May 31, 1997,was 28"C (air temperature20" C) at the outflow and within the pool. The presenceof tropical fish in the hot springsand its closeproximity to the tittle Lost\Pahsimeroiroad makeBarney Hot Springsa popular athactionfor swimmers and picnickers.

Severalspecies of tropical fish have been found in Barney Hot Springs and Barney Creek. Guppy, greenswordtail, amelanicconvict cichlids, and Mozambiquetilapia were collectedfrom Barney Hot Springs in September1985 (Courtenay etal. 1987). At this sametime, guppy, greenswordtail, and amelanicconvict cic|lids were collected in Barney Creek immediately below Barney Hot Springs. These 4 speciesappeared to be presentin brief checksof the hot springsin 1995 and 1997 (personalobservation). Although goldfish were presentin Barney Hot SpringsIn 1977(USR file data),none were found in 1985(Courtenay et al. 1987). In May 1997, no fish were found in a visual survey of 50 m of Barney Creek approximately 1 km below Barney Hot Springs,where the water temperaturewas 20"C (personal observation). This suggeststhat the distribution of these tropical speciesis limited to Barney Hot Springs and a short reach of Barney Creek immediately below the hot springs(personal observation).

BarneyHot Springs

SeeBarnev Creek

Basin Creek

Basin Creek, locatedin the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to Wet Creek. Basedon a review of an aerial photographtaken on August 3, 1979, and vegetationpatterns observed in the streamchannel, it appearsthat the streambetween Pine Creek and Black Tail Canyon is intermittent' Below Pine Creek, the streamflows for 2.4 km to Wet Creek; 1. 1 km oocur on Forest and 1.3 km on BLM'

50 Streamtemperatures were monitored in BasinCreek in 1997(Appendix E). TheForest Service R1/R4 Fish HabitatStandard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conducted on BasinCreek between Wet Creekand Pine Creekin 1997(Appendix F).

In 1997,rainbow trout were found in BasinCreek (Table 15, Appendices A andB). Visual surveys wereconducted approximately 6.5 km aboveWet Creekinearly July 1995,and 0.5 km aboveWet Creekin September1995 (Table 15, Appendix A). No fishwere found at these 2 sites.In July1997,138 m of Basin Creekwere electrofished approximately 300 m belowPine Creek (Table I 5,Appendix A). Two rainbowtrout were capturedat this site.

Table15. Summary of electrofishing data from Basin Creek.

Species Composition (%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source 0.4km aboveWet Creek 9t95 none presentstudy 300m belowPine Creek 7197 n/a 100 presentstudy 6.4km aboveWet Creek 7/95 none presentstudy

R1/R4 survey dataindicates that stream habitf between Wet Creek and Pine Creek is in poor oondition (Table 16). This 2,473 m stream reach was characterizedby a high width to depth ratio, low percentageof pools, no large woody debris,moderate bank stability, low percentageof undercut banks, and high surfacefines. Streamsuryeyors found that in someareas the streamhad downcut 1.5 m resulting in up to 2 m of raw bank. In 1997, streamtemperatures in Basin Creek immediately abovethe confluencewith Wet Creek exceeded20"C for 49 days and25"C for 3 days (Appendix E). Water temperaturesat 7 of the springs feedingBasinCreek(6ofwhichwereinPineCreek)hadtemperaturesbetween6andl0'ConJune29,1998. This indicatesthat water temperaturesin Basin Creek increaseconsiderably before entering Wet Creek. Poor habitatand high stream temperatureslimit this stream's ability to support fish.

Table16. Habitatcharacteristicsof Basin Creek between Wet Creek and Pine Creek in 1997 (Forest Service R1/R4 stream habitat inventory).

Reach Map Mean Bank Undercut Surface Length Gradient Width Mean Pools Large Stability Banks Fines (m) (%) (m) Width:Depth (%) Woody (%) (%) (%) Debris/100 m

-a 2,473 4.4 0.9 243 0.8 0.0 t) 25 68

51 Basinger Canyon

SeeBell Mountain Creek (Basinger Canyon)

Bear Canyon

Bear Canyon is locatedwest of Sawmill Canyonin the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of an aerial photographtaken August 6,1979 indicatedthere is a small perennialstream in Bear Canyon. However, flows appearvery limited and the streamruns only about 1.5 km before sinking. Due to the disjunct nature of the stream and limited flow, the presenceof fish is unlikely. Therefore, the streamwas not surveyed.

Bear Creek

Bear Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Bear Creek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph,but the streamappears to be approximately 5.6 km long. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Bear Creek in 1997(Appendix E). The Forest ServiceRliR4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overtonet al. 1997)was conductedon the fish bearing portion of Bear Creek in 1994(Appendix F)'

In 1995,rainbow trout were found in Bear Creek (Table 17, AppendicesA and B). Fish distribution appearsto be limited to approximatelythe first 1.2 km of stream. The upsheam distribution of fish appears limited by streamgradient. Unlike other tributaries in Sawmill Canyon with fish populations, no bull trout were found in Bear Creek. High streamtemperatures possibly explain the absenceof bull trout. The high numbers of small fish indicate Bear Creek is an important spawning and nursery areafor rainbow trout. Seventy-fivepercent of the 20 fish sampledwere under 100 mm and were likely age one fish. In addition, numerous young-of-the-year rainbow trout (approximately 30 mm in length) were observed.

Table17. Summary of electrofishing data from Bear Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

0.6 km aboveSawmill Road 9/9s nla r00 presentstudy

The stream andiparianhabitat of lower Bear Creek has been degradedby grazing. In 1994,the Forest ServiceR1/R4 streamhabitat survey was conductedon the lower 1.5km of Bear Creek(Table 18). The stream was characterized by a high width to depth ratio, a high percentageof pools, low amounts of large woody debris, high bank stability, low percentageofundercut banks, and high surface fines. In 1997, stteam

52 temperaturesin Bear Creek immediately abovethe confluencewith the Little Lost River exceeded15"C for 58 days, 20"C for 1 day, and did not exceed25"C (Appendix E).

Table 18. Habitat characteristicsof the lower 1.5 km of Bear Creek in 1994 (Forest Service R1/R4 stream habitatinventory).

Reach Map Mean Bank Undercut Surfaoe Length Gradient Width Mean Pools Large Stability Banks Fines (m) (%) (m) Width:Depth (%) Woody (%) (%) (%) Debris/100 m

1,593 5.5 3.8 lg.s 44 l.l 97 44

BeII Mountain Creek (Basinger Canyon)

Bell Mountain Creek, located in the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. The entire streamis diverted into the Telford pipeline approximately I km below the Forestboundary.Thepointoforiginwasnotclearlydetermined. In1995,thereweregoodflowsinthestream above the large spring nearthe point of diversion, However, limited flows observedin 1997suggest the stream above this spring may be intermittent.

No fish were found in Bell Mountain Creek. In June 1995, the stream was electrofished for approximately 10 m at the diversion pool and electrofished/visuallysurveyed for approximately50 m 0.4 km abovethe diversion (Appendix A). No fish were found at either of these2 sites. Any fish presentwould likely have been detected,particularly at the diversionpool.

Big Creek

Big Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to Wet Creek. Big Creek originatesat a seriesof springs6.6 km abovethe confluencewith Wet Creek. The stream flows for 4.5 km on Forest land, 0.8 km on private land, 0.8 km on BLM land, then re-entersprivate land for 0.5 km, where it entersWet Creek. Both dispersedrecreation and grazingalongthe lower reachof the stream are heavy and appearto be having negative impacts on the riparian area (personal observation). Stream remperarureswere monitoredin Big Creekin 1995,1996(Appendix D), and 1997(Appendix E). In 1997, the streamtemperature at the sourceof Big Creek was 7oC. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory(Overtonetal.1997)wasconductedonBigCreekinlg94(AppendixF). Atthistime,theinventory crew found a series of falls and cascadesapproximately 4 km above the Forest boundary' These falls and cascadesshould be quantified to determine their impact on fish movement.

There is one lake and one large beaverpond (known locally as Big Creek Lake) in Big Creek. Due to the beaverponds large size and semi-permanentnature, the Forest Servicecataloged it as a mountain lake in 1990. (SeeLower Big CreekLake and Upper Big CreekLake in Part 4).

53 Big Creek has beenstocked with rainbow trout, cutthroattrout, and brook trout. Rainbow trout were introduced by at least 1941, and cutthroat trout were introduced by at least 1947. A single introduction of brook trout was made in 1978.

lnlgg4,rainbowtrout, brooktrout, bulltrout, brooktroutxbull trout hybrids, and sculpin were found in Big Creek (Table 19, AppendicesA and B). Rainbowtrout were the most abundantspecies below the beaverpond. Above the beaverpond, brook trout becamethe dominant species.Bull trout were found only in the immediate vicinity of the beaver pond.

Table 19. Summary of electrofishing data from Big Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

0.8 km aboveWet Creek" 9/96 nla 86 l4 presentstudy

0.8 km aboveWet Creeku 8194 8.0 81 t9 presentstudy

0.8 km aboveWet Creeku 8/87 r4.3 100 Corsi& Elle 1989

20 m above F-orestboundary 9196 nla 37 63 presentstudy

At trailhead 9/94 33.6 52 48 presentstudy

Immediately below beaver 8/94 42.3 60 3g 2b presentstudy pond

Above beaverpond 9/94 lJt 18 77 6 presentstudy " Although the 1987 site could not be relocated,the 1994 site should be in the same area. b One bull trout appearedto be a hybrid. " All bull trout appearedto be hybrids.

Rainbow trout nearthe beaverpond showedevidence of hybridization with cutthroattrout. Thesefish had extremely large spotsover much of the body indicatingaYellowstone cutthroattrout influence. It is likely that this was the subspeciesof cutthroat trout introduced into Big Creek.

In 1996,brook trout, rainbow trout, and sculpin were found in Big Creek (Table 19, Appendices A and B). Two siteswere sampledin Big Creek in 1996. The lower site was in approximatelythe samelocation asthe lower 1994 site. As in 1994,rainbow trout were the dominant trout speciespresent. At the site near the Forest boundary,brook trout comprisedthe majority of the salmonidssampled. No bull trout were found in either location. Sculpin were collectedin both locations.

Brook trout do not appearto have been presentin Big Creekuntil the 1970's. Ted Rothwell, a local resident,fished Big Creekin the 1940's,1950's, and 1960's(personal communication). When he first began fishing the streamin the 1940's,most of the fish caughtwere bull trout up to 450 mm in length. A similar accouirtis madeby Albert Fullmer, Jr. (arearesident, personal communication). In the 1950's,most of the fish

54 he caught in Lower Big Creek Lake (beaverpond) were bull trout up to 1.8 kg. A photograph taken by Mr. Fullmer showsseveral bull trout approximately300 to 500 mm in lengththat were caughtin Lower Big Creek Lake (beaverpond) on June4,1958. Creelcensus dataare available from Big Creek for 1969,1971,1972, 1974" 1977, and 1979(USR file data). Between 1969 and 1974,47 anglerswho had fished a total of 177 hours were interviewed. Although theseanglers caught 197 fish (170 rainbow trout and 27 bull trout), they did not catchany brooktrout. \n1977,33 anglersfished for 70 hours,catching 58 rainbowtrott,12 bull trout, and 5 brook trout. In 1978,2,025 fingerling brook trout were releasedinto the stream. By 1990,brook trout comprised 95o/oof the fish caught by anglers in the large beaver pond in the head of Big Creek (Gamett 1990a). In 1994,brook trout were found in all 4 of the sites sampledin Big Creek,where they comprisedup to 77Yoof the speciescomposition (Table 19,Appendix A).

The bull trout found in Big Creek may be fluvial fish that migrate from lower Wet Creek andlor the mainstem of the Little Lost River to the headwaters of Big Creek to spawn. Large bull trout up to approximately 430 mm in length have been caughtin Big Creek (personal observation,USR file data). An apparentbrook trout x bull trout hybrid measuring455 mm was captured in 1994(present study). The large size of thesefish would indicate they are not residentto Big Creek. If this is true, they are likely migrating from lower Wet Creek or the mainstem of the Little Lost River to spawn.

Hybridization and competition betweenbrook trout and bull trout appearto be a significant threat to bull trout in Big Creek. ln 1994,no bull trout young-of-the-yearwere capturedin Big Creek, and it is likely many arc falling prey to brook trout. All 6 bull trout capturedabove the beaverpond appearedto be hybrids, and i of the 3 bull trout capturedbelow the beaverpond appearedto be a hybrid. It is likely that competition and hybridization will lead to the extinction of this bull trout population.

Big Springs Creek

Big SpringsCreek, locatedin the lower centralportion of the Little Lost River Valley, is a tributary to the Little Lost River. The stream originates at severalsprings on private land and flows 15.0 km to the mainstem of the Little Lost River. The water temperatureat 5 of thesesprings ranged between 6 and 9"C on May 19, 1998. Approximately half of the stream is on BLM land; the remainder is on private. Stream temperatureswere monitored in Big Springs Creek in 1997 (Appendix E)'

Rainbow trout have been introducedinto Big Springs Creek. It is currently stockedwith catchable rainbow trout and is the only stream in the Little Lost that is stocked (Bruce Rich, USR, personal communication).

In 7993,wild rainbow trout, hatcheryrainbow trout, and brook trout, were found in Big SpringsCreek (Table 20, AppendicesA and B). Trout densitieswere similar in 1987 and 1993.

Sculpin were found in the mid sectionof the streamin 1995(Appendix A). Two of these fish were collected,preserved, and later identified as shorthead(Table l3). In lg34,CarlHubbs collected91 shorthead sculpin, a brook trout, and 7 rainbow trout from Big Springs Creek (UMMZ).

Creel censusdata indicate bull trout were presentin Big SpringsCreek as recent as 1977 (Appendix C). However, additional creel censusdata, which were collected in 1978, 1979, and 1987(Appendix C), and electrofishing datafrom i 987 (Corsi and Elle I 989) and 1993 (present study), indicate they are no longer present.

55 Table20. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Big SpringsCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'? Rb BK BI Source

0.8 km aboveroad orossingu 9/93 20.9 80 20 presentstudy

0.8 km aboveroad orossingu 8/87 20.r g4b 6 Corsi& Elle 1989

cc "near souroe" (T8N R27E) 7 t34 nla UMMZ " Although the 1987site could not be relocated,the 1993site shouldbe in the same area. b Onehatchery rainbow. " Sevenrainbow trout 38-48 mm, Onebrook trout 60 mm.

Birch Basin

Birch Basin is locatedin the centralportion of the Lemhi Mountain Range.A field surveyof the basin in June 1995 indicated a small perennial spring and no fish habitat (Appendix A).

Bird Canyon

Bird Canyon is locatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. There are no perennial streams in the canyon (personal observation).

Black Canyon

Black Canyon is located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of aerial photographs taken on July 31, 1979 and a field inspection indicated there are no perennial streamsin this drainage(personal observation; JanetValle, LRRD, personal communication).

Black Creek

Black Creek, locatedin the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. The only perennialflow in the canyonis from a small spring. The streamhas a20Yogradient (map gradient). The water from this spring flows for approximately 0.8 km, where it is diverted into a pipeline approximately 1 km abovethe Forestboundary. This pipeline entersthe Deep Creek pipeline 1.8 km south of the point of diversion.

56 In July 1997, avisual survey of the diversion pool and the stream immediately above the pool was completed (Appendix A). No fish were found, and fish habitat is essentially non-existent.

Black Tail Canyon

Black Tail Canyon is located in the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. A field review in July 1995 indicated there are no perennial streamsin the subdrainage.

Boulder Creek and Fowler Springs

Boulder Creek and Fowler Springsare locatedin the southernend of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of an aerial photographtaken on August 3,7979 indicatedthat, with the exceptionof Fowler Springs, there are no perennialwaters in this subdrainage.Fowler Springshas a limited flow approximately 1 km long. Due to the limited flow and disjunct natureof Fowler Springs,it is unlikely fish are present. Therefore, the stream was not surveYed.

Briggs Canyon

Briggs Canyon is located in the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. A field check of Briggs Canyon at the Forest boundary in November 1995 indicated there are no perennial streams in this subdrainage(personal observation).

Buck Canyon

Buok Canyon is located in the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. There are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage(personal observation)'

Bull Creek

Bull Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is located in Sawmill Canyon" The origin of Bull Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appears to be approximately2.5 km long.

No fish were found in Bull Creek. ln 7995,the streamwas electrofishedfor approximately 70 m at 0.8 km above the Little Lost River and for approximately 30 m at 1.2km above the Little Lost River (Appendix A). No fish were found at either site.

57 Bunting Canyon

Bunting Canyon Creek, locatedin the southernend of the Lemhi Mountain Range, is a tributary to Badger Creek. The origin of the stream could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph, but it appearsto be a spring 3.4 km abovethe confluencewith Badger Creek. The entire stream is on Forest land except for the extreme lower portion, which is private. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon lower Bunting Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

The fish population in Bunting Canyon Creek is very limited. In 1987,one bull trout and 2 rainbow trout were capturednear the confluencewith Badger Creek (Corsi and Elle 1989). In 1997,43 m of stream in this same area were sampled (Table 21, Appendices A and B). Three bull trout, 3 rainbow trout, and 3 young-of-the-yearbull trout were captured.Although the high streamgradient limits fish habitat,it is possible that bull trout from Badger Creek use this stream for spawning.

A falls, 1 m in height, locatedapproximately 300 m above Badger Creek, appearsto be a barrier to fish migration. In 1995,the streamwas electrofishedfor approximately60 m 0.4 km aboveBadger Creek and forapproximately5O m 2-0-knabove3adger Creek (Table 2l,AppendixA)- No fish were fioxndateither- of these2 sites.

Table2l. Summary of electrofishing data from Bunting Canyon Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

775 m aboveBadger Creeku 7/97 nla 50 50 presentstudy

aa 175 m aboveBadger Creeku 8t87 nla 67 JJ Corsiand Elle 1989

0.8 km aboveBadser Creek 6l9s none presentstudy 2.0 km aboveBadger Creek 6/95 none presentstudy o Althoueh the 1987 site could not be relocated,the 1997 site should be in the same area.

Cabin Fork

See Cedarville Canyon

Camp Creek(Sawmill Canyon)

CampCreek, a tributaryto TimberCreek, is locatedin SawmillCanyon. Although the tributary is unnamedon the USGSorthophoto and Forest Service map, a signalong the streamdesignated it as Camp

58 Creek. The streamis locatedimmediately south of Redrock Creek. The origin of Camp Creek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph, but it appearsto be approximately2.4 km long. Stream bank erosion has createda barrier approximately 1 m high immediately above Timber Creek. This barrier likely restricts fish movement into the stream. The ForestService R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon Camp Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 7995, bull trout were found in Camp Creek (Table 22, AppendicesA and B). Two sites were electrofished. The lower site was approximately 100m aboveTimber Creek. The upper site was nearthe road 1.6 km aboveTimber Creek, In the lower section,5 bull trout were.collected. All of thesefish were between 84 mm and 137mm in length. No fish were found at the secondsampling site. Basedon sampling and a field review of the drainage, fish distribution appearsto be limited to approximately the lower 1 km of stream.

Table 22. Summaryof electrofishingdata from CampCreek (Sawmill Canyon).

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source 100m aboveTimber Creek 9195 nla 100 presentstudy 1.6km aboveTimber Creek 9/95 none presentstudy

Camp Creek (Southern Lemhi Mountain Range)

Camp Creek is located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of an aerial photograph taken August3, 1979 indicated there are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage.

Cedar Run Canyon and Mud Spring

CedarRun Canyon Creek and Mud Spring are locatedin the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range. Although flows do intermittently reachthe mainstem, the stream is usually disjunct from the Little Lost River. The streamssource appears to be a spring 1.5 km abovethe Forestboundary. The stream flows for I km, where it is diverted into a canal. Mud Spring, which is located near the mouth of the canyon, is diverted into this canal.

No fish were found in Cedar Run Canyon Creek or Mud Spring. Cedar Run Canyon Creek, Mud Spring, and the canal they are diverted into were surveyedfor fish in June 1995. Cedar Run Canyon Creek was electrofished near the diversion for approximately 50 m, Mud Spring was visually surveyed for approximately 50 m, and the canal into which they are diverted was electrofished/visually surveyed for approximately 50 m (Appendix A). No fish were found at any of the sites.

59 Cedarville Canyon (including North Fork and Cabin Fork)

The Cedarville Canyondrainage, includingNorth Fork and Cabin Fork, is locatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. A review of aerial photographstaken on August 3, 1979 indicated there are no significant perennialstreams in Cedarville Canyonor North Fork. One perennialstream was found in the Cabin Fork. The streamoriginates at alarge spring near the end of the road in Cabin Fork. This spring emits enough water to sustain a flow for severalhundred meters. The stream is I to 2 m wide and has an approximatemean depth of 0.1 m. No fish were observedduring a visual survey of approximately 50 m of the streamin November 1995(Appendix A).

Chicken Creek

Chicken Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is disjunct from Squaw Creek. A review of an aerialphotograph taken August 3, 1979indicates the stream'ssource is a spring 1.8 km abovethe Forest boundary. The streamcrosses Forest land for i.8 km, private land for 0.8 km, then sinks after crossingapproximately 3'2km of BLM land.

No fish were found in Chicken Creek. The stream was electrofished and visually surveyed for approximately 20 m at the BlM/private property line in September1995 (Appendix A). Fish habitat was essentially nonexistent, and no fish were found'

Coal Creek

Coal Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to Wet Creek. Basedon a review of an aerial photographtaken on August 3,1979, Coal Creek originatesat a spring 0.8 km above its confluencewith Wet Creek. The entire sffeamis on Forest land. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Coal Creek in 1997(Appendix E). The Forest ServiceRl/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon Coal Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995,rainbow trout were found in Coal Creek(Table 23, AppendicesA and B). It appearsfish are confined primarily to the upper reach of the streambecause habitat in the lower reach is limited due to the steep stream gradient.

Table23. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Coal Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fishil00 m'? Rb BK BI Source

Below Gate 7/95 tt.2 100 presentstudy

60 Corral Canvon Creek

Corral Canyon Creek, locatedin the southernend of the Lost River mountainrange,is a tributary to Horsethief CanyonCreek. In July 1997, avisual surveyof approximately 30 m of streamwas conducted20 m above Horsethief Canyon Creek (Appendix A). No fish were found. Vegetation patterns and flows near Horsethief Canyon Creek suggestthe stream is intermittent.

Corral Creek

Corral Creek, locatedbetween Squaw Creek andDry Creek,is disjunct from Wet Creek. The stream is approximately0.5 m wide. Fish habitatis limited by the stream'ssrnall sizeand limited flow.

In June 1997,50m of streamwere visually surveyedapproximately I km abovethe Wet Creek Road (Appendix A). No fish were found.

Cub Canyon

Cub Canyon Creek, located west of Sawmill Canyon in the Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. The point of origin is a series of springs approximately 1.5 km above the Forest boundary. After leaving Forest lands,the stream crossesapproximately 1.5 km of private land, where the water is storedin a pond for livestockuse. A field checkof the streamin Septemberand November 1995 indicated habitat was limited due to small flows.

Deep Creek

Deep Creek, locatedin the cenffal portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. Basedon a review of an aerial photograph,the stream'ssource is a spring 2.3 km abovethe Forest boundary. The streamflows 1.5 km, where it is diverted into a hydroelectric pipeline. The settling pond at the point of diversion is approximately 15 m wide and2 m deep. A small, unnamedtributary enters Deep Creek from the south just above the sefiling pond'

No fish were found in Deep Creek. Three locationswere surveyedin 1995(Appendix A). A visual survey was conductedof the diversion pool. The streamwas electrofishedimmediately above the diversion pool and approximately 200 m abovethe diversion pool. A total of approximately 50 m was electrofished. No fish were found at any of these sites.

Deer Creek (seealso Deer Creek, North Fork; Deer Creek, South Fork)

Deer Creek, located in the southern end of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to the mainstem of the Little Lost River. Deer Creek originatesat the confluenceof the SouthFork Deer Creek and

61 North Fork Deer Creekand flows for 8.2 km to the Little Lost River. The streamoriginates on Forestland and flows for 1.3,6.4, and 0.5 km on Forest,BLM, and private lands,respectively. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Deer Creek in 1997(Appendix E). The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton xal. 1997) was conductedon Deer Creek in t997 (Appendix F),

Accounts from anglerssuggest bull trout were not historically presentin Deer Creek. Anna Sermon hasfished Deer Creeksince about 1938 (personalcommunication). However, shehas never caught a bull trout in that stream. In addition, her family often fished Deer Creek betweenthe late 1930'sand the late 1940's. Although they would oatchbetween 50 and 150 fish in Deer Creek on a single outing, none of the fish were bull trout.

A single introduction of 1,200rainbow trout ranging between 13 cm and 20 cm in length was made in 1954.

Rainbow trout and sculpin were found in Deer Creek (Table 24, AppendicesA and B). In 1992, the lower 2 transectswere sampled. Thesesame sites were also sampledln 1987(Corsi and Elle I 989). Densities decreasedfrom 1987to 1992in both of thesetransects. In 1995,an additional site was sampledatthe Forest boundary. Rainbow trout were the only salmonid collectedfrom Deer Creek in 7987, 7992, and 1995. It is likely the naturally high streamtemperature of Deer Creekprecludes bull trout from successfully spawning in Deer Creek,North Fork Deer Creek,and SouthFork Deer Creek. This may explainthe absenceof bull trout in these streams.

In 1998,the Idaho Division of EnvironmentalQuality sampleda I 00 m sectionof Deer Creek located 300 m abovethe privatelBlM boundary (Table 24). This was done to help confirm the absenceof bull trout in this stream. Only 2 rainbow trout20-29 mm in length were captured'

Sculpin were found nem the Forest boundary in 1995 (Appendix A). Four of these fish were collected, preserved, andlater identified as shorthead(Table 13). No sculpin were found in the South Fork Deer Creek or North Fork Deer Creek. A small falls, 0.6 m in height near the Forest boundary, has likely blocked their passage.

Deer Creek. North Fork

North Fork Deer Creek, locatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Deer Creek. North Fork Deer Creekoriginates at a spring 0.8 km abovethe confluencewith the SouthFork o Deer Creek. The water temperatureat this spring was I 3 C on June 6, 1997, and on May 19, 1998. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on North Fork Deer Creek in 1997 (Appendix F)'

In 1995,rainbow trout were found in the North Fork Deer Creek(Table 25, AppendicesA and B). The 357.4 fis|/|00 m2 density likely reflects a high ooncentrationof spawning fish. This high density may also be explained by fish moving into the transectbetween passes. It is doubtful densitiesremain this high year round, particularly due to the lack of habitat (i.e.- pools, cover, etc.). Fish occupy the entire streamreach. It is likely the naturally high streamtemperature precludes bull trout from successfullyspawning in the stream. This may explain the absenceof bull trout in this streamand Deer Creek.

62 Table 24. Summary of electrofishing data from Deer Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

0.3 km above private/BlM 7t98 0.0 IdahoDivision of boundary Environmental Quality

2.1km aboveLittle Lost 8/92 22.4 100 presentstudy River -BLM #1b

2.1km aboveLittle Lost 8187 45.9" 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 River -BLM #lb

1.6 km below Forest 8192 20.7 100 presentstudy boundary -B.L}rl#2d

1.6 km below Forest 8/87 28.2 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 boundary -BLM#2d

At Forest boundary 6195 42.5 100 presentstudy o Only two rainbow trout20-29 mm in length were captured' b Old BLMsite#2. " Bureau of Land Management file data indicates there was an error in the 1987 mean stream widths suppliedto the Departmentof Fish and Game for Deer Creek. Subsequently,the fish densities in Corsi and Elle ( 1989)were incorrect. Fish densitiesfor Deer Creekshown here for 1987have been recalculated basedon the streamwidth in 1992. Therefore,they do not match thosereported for Deer Creek in 1987 by Corsiand Elle (1989). d Old BLM site #3.

63 Table25. Summary of electrofishing data from Deer Creek, North Fork.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source

0.2km aboveSouth Fork 6/9s 357.4 100 presentstudy o More fish were capturedin this transectthan could be held betweenpasses. Therefore, fish were released below the transectbetween passes. It may be possiblethat someof thesefish moved back into the fransect, were recaptured,and recounted.

I)eer Creek. South Fork

SouthFork Deer Creek, locatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Deer Creek. SouthFork Deer Creekoriginates at a spring 0.9 km abovethe confluencewith the North Fork Deer Creek. The water temperatureat this springwas 13"C on June6, 1997,and on May 18, 1998. The Forest ServiceRiiR4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton etal. 1997) was conductedon South Fork Deer Creek in 1997(Appendix F).

In1995,rainbow trout were found in SouthFork Deer Creek (Table 26, AppendicesA and B). Fish occupy the entire streamreach. It is likely the naturally high streamtemperature precludes bull trout from successfullyspawning in the stream. This may explain the absenceof bull trout in this streamand Deer Creek.

Table26. Summary of electrofishing data from Deer Creek, South Fork.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

0.5 km aboveNorth Fork 6195 37.5 r00 presentstudy

Dry Creek

Dry Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is disjunot from Wet Creek and the Little Lost River. The origin of Dry Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph. However, in August 1995,the streamwas flowing 7.5 km abovethe Forestboundary, indicating ihe streamis at least 13.2km long. The streamflows at least 7.5 km on Forestland and 5.8 km on BLM land, where it is diverted into a hydroelectricpipeline. Thereare 8 lakesin Dry Creek. At one time, a reservoir (Dry Creek Reservoir)existed on Dry Creekbelow Long Lost Creek,but hassince failed. (SeeDry Creek Lake #1, Dry Creek Lake #2,Dry Creek Lake #3, Dry Creek Lake #4,Dry Creek Pond, Dry Creek Reservoir, Copper

64 Lake, Swauger Lake #1, Swauger Lake #2, and Swauger Lake #3 in Part 4.) Stream temperatureswere monitored in Dry Creek in 1997(Appendix E). The Forest Service Rl/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon the fish bearing portion of Dry Creek and an unnamedtributary in 1997(Appendix F).

Severalwater developmentprojeots have been carried out on Dry Creek. Theseinclude construction of a dam (see Dry Creek Reservoir in Part 4), wooden pipeline, cement canal, and hydroelectric pipeline. Williams (1973) indicatesthat in the late 1800'sor early 1900's,a canal was constructedin Dry Creek in an effort to reducewater loss in the main channel. Later, a 1.2 m wide redwood pipeline was usedto carry water from Dry Creek Reservoirto Wet Creek (Rob Stauffer,area resident, personal communication). In the mid 1960's,a cementcanal was builtto carry water from approximately2,5 km below the dam site to Wet Creek. In the 1980's,this canalwas replacedby a hydroelectricpipeline, which originatesat the samepoint as the canal. The pipeline terminatesat a power plant near Wet Creek. Except in periods of high water, the entire stream is diverted into the pipeline.

Dry Creek was stocked with rainbow trout between 1948 and 1964. A single cutthroat trout introduction was madein 1964. Cutthroattrout, rainbow trou! andbrook trout may havebeen introduced into Dry Creek in 1915(see Part 2: Species,Cutthroat Trout).

ln 1995,brook trout and rainbow trout x cutthroattrout hybrids were found in Dry Creek (Table 27, Appendices A and B). Fish densities were the highest above the dam site and lowest near the diversion. Although Corsi and Elle (1989) found cutthroattrout in Dry Creekin 1987,none were found during sampling efforts in 1995. In 1997,a Forest Serviceemployee caught what appearedto be a pure cutthroat trout from the large spring adjacentto Dry Creek 1.2km abovethe Forestboundary.

No fish were found in the upper reachof Dry Creek. A single waterfall 4.5 m in height is located on Dry Creek approximately 1.5 km abovethe Forestboundary. Four locationsabove these falls were surveyed in August 1995. The first 2 sections,a 60 m section0.4 km abovethe falls and an 80 m section0.8 km above the falls, were electrofished. The other 2 sections,a seriesof beaverponds adjacentto Dry Creek 3.2km abovethe falls and a 30 m reachof stream4.8 km abovethe falls, were visually surveyed. No fish were found at any of these sites. Likewise, a Forest ServiceR1/R4 fish habitat crew found no fish in a visual survey of portions of a 1.5 km reachof Dry Creekabove the falls.

The cutthroattrout and associatedhybrids found in Dry Creek (USR file data, Corsi and Elle 1989, present study) are likely the result of introductionsof this species.Corsi and Elle (1989) speculatedthat emigration of cutthroattrout from SwaugerLakes to Dry Creek may explain the occurrenceof this speciesin this stream. However, the nature of the outlet betweenthese lakes and Dry Creek suggeststhat movement of fish betweenthe lakes and Dry Creek is unlikely (personal observation).

Apparently, bull trout were historically presentin Dry Creek. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River valley in 1910,indicated that in the 1920'she caughtonly "dolly varden" in Dry Creek Reservoir and Dry Creek above the reservoir (personal communication). Likewise, Rob Stauffer, an arearesident, indicated that in the early 1960's,"dolly varden" comprised abott l0o/oof the fish he caught in Dry Creek (personal communication). He also reported catching brook trout and rainbow trout in Dry Creek.

65 Table27. Summary of electrofishing data from Dry Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

50 m abovediversion pool 8/95 nla 67u JJ presentstudy

0.8 km abovediversion 8/9s 4.1 100 presentstudy

I 50 m aboveForest 8195 8.9 100 presentstudy boundary'

i50 m aboveForest 8/87 3.9 87" Corsi& Elle 1989 boundaryb

Pool adjacentto above sited 8t95 nla 100 presentstudy

Spring adjacentto Dry Creek 8195 nla I 00" presentstudy 1.2 km aboveForest boundary

0.4 km abovethe falls 8/9s presentstudy

0.8 km abovethe falls 8/9s presentstudy

Beaver ponds adjacent to Dry 8t95 presentstudy Creek 3.2km abovethe fallsr

4.8 km abovethe fallsr 8l9s presentstudy o These fish were rainbow trout x cutthroat trout hybrids. b Although the 1987site could not be relocated,the 1995site shouldbe in the samearea. " Cutthroattrout comprised13% of the sample. d This was a pool adjacentto the stream,and fish were likely concenfated in the pool following high flows. " All fish were between70 and i40 mm. r These sites were visually surveyed.

East Canyon

East Canyon is located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of aerial photographs taken on July 31, 1979 and field observationsindicate there are no perennial streams in this subdrainase.

Eightmile Canyon (including Right and Left forks)

Eightmile Canyon is looatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. A field review indicated there areno perennial streamsin this subdrainage(personal observation).

66 Fallert Springs

Fallert Springs is located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range. Water flows for a short distancefrom the springs,where it is diverted into the Uncle Ike Creek pipeline. The steepstream gradient (75o/omapgradient) and limited flows limit fish habitat,and it is doubtful any fish are present. Therefore,the stream was not surveyed.

Fallert Springs Creek

Fallert SpringsCreek, located in the lower, centralportion of the Little Lost River Valley, is a tributary to the Little Lost River. It originatesat a spring on private land and flows 6.3 km to the mainstemof the Little Lost River. Approximately 1.2 km are on private land, the remainderon BLM. The streamtemperature near the sourcespring was i5'C on June 17,1997. The temperatureat the sourcespring was 9"C on May 19, 1998. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Fallert Springs Creek in 1997 (Appendix E).

In l993,rainbow trout were found in Fallert SpringsCreek (Table 28, AppendicesA and B) . ln 1987, both rainbow trout and brook trout were found (Corsi and Elle 1989). In 1993,dense aquatic vegetation made sampling very difficult and a population estimatewas not possible.

Table28. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Fallert SpringsCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source Upstreamfrom Fallert 9t93 n/a 100" presentstudy SpringsBridge Upstreamfrom Fallert 8187 0.8 80 20 Corsi& Elle 1989 SpringsBridge o One hatchery rainbow trout collected'

Firebox Creek

Firebox Creek,a tributary to the mainstemof the Little Lost River, is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Firebox Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appearsto be approximately2.5 kmlong. The majority of the drainagewas burnedin 1988. The ForestService R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conductedon Firebox Creek in 1994 (Appendix F).

In 1997,bull trout were found in Firebox Creek(Table 29, AppendicesA and B). Densitieswere relativelyhigh at 16.6fisl/100 m2. The largestbull trout capturedwas 403 mm. In 1994,a Forest Service habitatcrew observedbull trout up to approximately350 mm in the stream (LRRD file data). At that time,

67 smaller bull trout were observedin streamreaches with gradientsin excessof l0o/o.The presenceof large bull trout suggeststhat Firebox Creek servesas a spawning and rearing areafor fluvial bull trout.

Table 29. Summary of electrofishing datafrom Firebox Creek.

Species Composition (%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source 400 m aboveLittle Lost River 7/97 16.6 100 presentstudy

Fowler Springs

SeeBoulder Creek

Garfield Creek

Garfield Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is located in Sawmill Canyon. Garfield Creek originates at a spring 2.5 l,rrr above the Little Lost River. The stream flows for 2.2 km on Forestland, then 0.3 km on BLM land. Limited streamflows (approximately0.5 m wide and 0.1 m deep)limit fish habitat.

No fish were found in Garfield Creek. The streamwas electrofishedfor approximately75 m,200 m above the Forest boundary (Appendix A)' No fish were found.

Ilawley Canyon

Hawley Canyon is locatedon Hawley Mountain in the centralportion of the Little Lost River Valley, There are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage(personal observation),

Hawley Creek

Hawley Creek, a tributary to Iron Creek, is locatedin Sawmill Canyon.The origin of Hawley Creek could not be olearly determinedllom an aerial photograph,but it appearsto be approximately 2.5 km long. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overlon ef al. 1997) was conductedon Hawley Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995,one bull trout measuring 199mm was capturedin Hawley Creek (Table 30, Appendices A and B). The streamwas electrofishedfor 47 m immediatelyabove the Iron Creek Road. Based on length at

68 age datafor bull trout in the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989),this was probably an age2 fish. In 1997, a Forest Service R1/R4 fish habitat crew observedseveral bull trout up to 200 mm in length in the stream approximately1,500 m aboveIron Creek.

Table 30. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Hawley Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00m'z Rb BK BI Source

Immediately above Iron 9lgs nla 100 presentstudy Creek Road

IIeII Canyon

Hell Canyon Creek, locatedin the centralportion of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Long Lost Creek. The stream originates at ShadowLakes and flows approximately 3.0 km to Long Lost Creek. However, aerial photographssuggest the streamis intermiffent for much of this distance. Although the stream was not surveyed, limited flow and fish habitat suggestthat fish are not present in this stream. This conclusionis also supportedby the lack of fish in Long Lost Creek.

Hilts Creek

Hilts Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to Wet Creek. The origin of the stream was not apparentfrom an aerial photograph taken August 3,1979, but the stream appearsto be approximately 1.5 km long. Due to limited flows and potential winter freezing, fish habitat is limited, and it is unlikely fish are presentin this stream.

Horse Creek

Horse Creek, locatedin the southemportion ofthe Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. Horse Creek originatesat springsnear the ForestBoundary and flows for 5.8 km on BLM land. Upon enteringprivate land, it is either diverted for inigation or sinks into the ground (Connie Oar, landowner, personal communication). The water temperature atthe 3 main springs feeding Horse Creek ranged between 8 and9"C on June29,1998.

One accountfrom an angler suggeststhat bull trout were not historically presentin Horse Creek. Neil Reed,who fished the Little Lost River drainagesince the late 1930's,regularly fished Horse Creek. However, he has never caught a bull trout from that stream(Anna Sermon,valley historian,personal communication).

69 In 1995 and 1997, rainbow ffout and sculpinwere found in Horse Creek(Table 3 1, AppendicesA and B). Although densities are relatively high, riparian habitat along the lower reach of the stream has been negatively impactedby grazing. Three sculpin were collected, preserved,and later identified as shorthead (Table 13). It appearsthat sculpin and rainbow trout occupy the majority of the streamreach.

Table 31. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Horse Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/I00m'z Rb BK BI Source At BLM / privateline 7197 100 presentstudy 0.8km belowForest 6t9s 38.8 100 presentstudy boundary

Horse Lake Creek

HorseLake Creek,a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek),is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Horse Lake Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appears to be approxim ately 1.5 km long. There is one lake in Horse Lake Creek (seeHorse Lake in Part 4).

No fish were found in Horse Lake Creek. In June 1997, approximately75 m of streamwere visually surveyed 300 m above the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) (Appendix A). No fish were found. Steep stream gradients and low flows limit fish habitat. Furthermore, it is unlikely fish can accessthe stream due to the complexity of the stream channel near the Little Lost River.

Ilorsethief Canvon Creek

Horsethief CanyonCreek, located in the southernend ofthe Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Hurst Creek. In July 1997, a30 m sectionof streamlocated 20 m aboveCorral Canyon Creekwas visually surveyed(Appendix A). No fish were found, Flows andvegetation patterns suggest the streamis intermittent.

Hurst Canyon

Hurst Canyon Creek, locatedin the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. In July 1997, avisual survey of approximately50 m of streamwas conducted near the right and left forks (Appendix A). No fish were found. Flows and vegetationpatterns suggestthe stream is intermittent below the Forest boundary.

70 Iron Creek

Iron Creek, atribtfiary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Iron Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appears to be approximately 4.8 km long. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Iron Creek in 1996 (Appendix D) and 1997 (Appendix E). The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on Iron Creek in 1994 and the forks of Iron Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995,bull trout were found in Iron Creek(Table 32, AppendicesA and B). In 1987,Corsi and Elle (19S9) found both rainbow trout and bull trout 1.5 km below the 1995 site. A comparisonof their data with that gathered in 1995 indicates rainbow trout are confined to the lower 0.8 km of the stream and have not advancedfurther up Iron Creek.

In 1996,the 1995site was resampledto veri$, the absenceof brook trout and rainbow trout (Table 32, AppendicesA and B). Only bull trout were found.

Table 32. Summary of electrofishing data from Iron Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

Just above Iron Creek Roado 9t96 nla 100 presentstudy

Just above Iron Creek Road" 8/95 10.1 100 presentstudy

0.5 km abovethe Little Lost 7/87 6.6 96 Corsi& Elle 1989 River (Sawmill Creek) u The 1995 and 1996sites are approximately1.5 km abovethe 1987site.

Iron Creekappears to be an importantspawning areafor fluvial bull trout. On August 23,1995,14 bull trout were collected in Iron Creek. Two of thesewere372 mm and 274 mm in length. The size of these fish relative to the small size of the streamsuggests these fish are fluvial bull trout that have moved into the stream to spawn. The remainder of the fish collected were between 77 and 159 mm.

In October 1997, aForest ServiceR1/R4 fish habitat crew found bull trout in the right and left forks of Iron Creek. In the right fork, fish were only observeda short distanceabove the forks, andtheir distribution is limited by a lack of habitat. Fish movementinto the left fork appearsrestricted by a falls approximately 1 m high, which is createdby alargedownedtree. While this falls likely blocks the movementof fluvial bull trout into this fork, bull trout were observedfor approximately500 m abovethe falls. At this sametime, a large pair of bull trout approximately350 mm long (likely fluvial fish) were observedin Iron Creek immediately below the forks.

71 Jackson Creek

JacksonCreek, a tributary to Iron Creek, is locatedin Sawmill Canyon.The origin of JacksonCreek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photographbut it appearsto be approximately 2.5 km long. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on Jackson Creek in 1997(Appendix F).

In 1995,bull trout were found in JacksonCreek (Table 33, Appendices A and B). The stream was electrofishedfor 73 m immediately abovethe Iron CreekRoad. Only 2 bull trout measuring134 and 155mm were captured.Based on length atage datafor bull trout in the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989) these were likely age 2 fish. Although the stream doesnot support large numbers of fish, it appearsthe stream serves as a rearing area for bull trout.

Table 33. Summaryof electrofishingdata from JacksonCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

Just above Iron Creek Road 9195 nla 100 presentstudy

Jumpoff Canyon

Jumpoff Canyon is located in the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Ranqe. There are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage(personal observation).

Little Lost River, Mainstem (including Sawmill Creek)

(Note: That portion of the mainstem of the Little Lost River from Summit Creek to Timber Creek is referredto as Sawmill Creek. The streamabove and below this reachis the mainstemof the Little Lost River. For purposesof uniformity, Sawmill Creek will be treatedas part of the mainstem of the Little Lost River.)

The mainstemof the Little Lost River originatesin the headof Sawmill Canyonabove Firebox Creek. The river continuesdown Sawmill Canyon and the Little Lost River Valley where,when undiverted, it sinks southeastof the town of Howe. The mainstem is approximately 88 km long. Stream temperatureswere monitoredintheLittleLostRiverin 1987,1988, 1994, 1995,1996 (AppendixD), and 1997(AppendixE). The Forest Service RllR4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conductedon the Little Lost River betweenthe Sawmill Canyon road (#101) near the Forestboundary and Firebox Creek (excluding private sections)in 1994(Appendix F). That portion aboveFirebox Creek, including an unnamed tributary (described as "right fork" by the inventory crew), was inventoried in 1997 (Appendix F).

72 Speciesintroduced into the mainstemofthe Little Lost River (including Sawmill Creek)have included rainbow trout, brook trout, cutthroat trout, and mountain whitefish.

The mainstemhas undergone extensive ahutnelization and diversion. Williams (1973) indicatedthat sefflersto the valley in the late eighteen or early nineteen hundreds"found certain streamsin the valley in which most of the water was going to waste becausethe channelsoverflowed most of the time or followed long routesthrough porousgravel, allowing the water to sink." This referencespecifically mentionsthe "'Saw Mill Canyon Rights' where old channelswere repairedand new onesmade where necessary."Indeed, reviews of aerial photographsindicate that much of the mainstembetween the Forest boundary and Summit Creek has been channelized. Currently, there is no effort to maintain this channelization and the stream channel is returning to a natural condition.

An aerial photograph taken on July 20, 1959 indicates that at that timer all of the Little Lost River was being diverted acrossthe alluvial fan into Summit Creek. The point of diversion was approximately 8 km below Warm Creek. This appearsto have resultedin the completedewatering of approximately 5 km of the Little Lost River above Summit Creek. This was likely doneto reducewater loss in the main channel. This diversionhas not beenused since 1960(James Andreason, local landowner,personal communication).

Since 1985,the lower portion of the mainstemhas beendewatered annually for winter flood control. The following summary of this flood control project and related mitigation project on the Little Lost River between Warm Creek and Summit Creek (lower Sawmill Creek) is taken from the Little Lost River Flood Control MeasurePIqn and EnvironmentalImpact Statement(SCS and BLM 1985),Devoe (no date),IFD file data,and Anderson (1988).

Prior to I985,freezing on the lower Little Lost River resulted in severeflooding in and around the community of Howe. Limited streamflow and low streamgradient in the lower reachof river resulted in the formation of ice in the river channel. Subsequently,water would leavethe channeland flood between600 and 2,900 hectaresannually. Mean annual damagesfrom flooding were approximately $75,400. However, in 1969,an estimated$442,600 in damagesoccured.

In the early 1980's, aplanto alleviateflooding was developed.In 1985,a draft environmentalimpact statement(EIS) had been preparedwhen the threat of severeflooding prompted emergencyaction. During this time, the selectedalternative for flood control identified in the draft EIS was partially irnplemented. This involved diverting the entire river into two 0.8 km long 3 m deepinfiltration trenchesapproximately 14 km north of Howe. This resultedin the total dewateringof the lower 16.9km of the river and an estimated loss of 4.200 trout. Later, the remainderof the project was implemented,and the river continuesto be dewatered on an annualbasis.

To offset the loss of trout, a mitigation project was designedfor the mainstem above Summit Creek (Sawmill Creek). The purpose of the project was to improve fishery habitat betweenthe Sawmill Canyon Road and the old USGS gauging station above Summit Creek. Most of the riparian vegetation in this reach had beenburned by a rangefire severalyears before. Although regenerationin the upper portion ofthis reach was good, the re-establishmentof tree and shrub riparian speciesin the lower reach was limited by heavy grazing. Subsequently,stream bank erosion beganto occur. The purpose of the rnitigation project was to establishenough permanent fishery habitat in this reachto replacefish lost in the lower Little Lost River as a result of flood control. The specific objectives of the mitigation project during the first 20 years were to increasefish populationsby 50o%,decrease stream width by 3\Yo,increasestream depth by 30Yo,and increase woody riparian speciesby 75%. This was to be accomplishedby fencing the entire streamreach to eliminate

73 or temporarily excludewarn seasoncattle grazingon 81 hectares,piping water to provide a water sourcefor cattle,placing rock and rock diversions in the upper stream reach, planting vegetation in both reacheswith emphasison the lower reach, and installing log deflectors in the lower reach.

Implementation of the project beganin 1986. Atthattime, the exclosurefence was constructed. In 1987,the pipeline was installed,and willows were plantedin 1988. Vegetationbegan to respondimmediately after implementation. However, due to drought and browsing by big game, willow survival was only 25o/o. By 1993, riparian habitat and channel and bank conditions within the project area had improved. The placement of rocks and structuresis to take place once the streambanks have stabilized.

Rainbow trout, brook trout, bull trout, and sculpin were found in the mainstem (including Sawmill Creek) during the current study (Table 34, AppendicesA and B). Fish occupythe entire mainstem. Bull trout are the only speciespresent in the upper reach. Rainbow trout are the dominant speciesbelow Iron Creek.

Trout populationsdeclined sharply in the mainstembetween 1987 andthe 1990's (Table 34; seealso Part2,Bull Trout). This is particularly evident in the transectbelow Big SpringsCreek andthe transectbelow Deer Creek. Thesetwo sites are permanentstations that were sampledin 1987by Corsi and Elle (1989) and resampledduring the presentstudy. In 1987,the site below Big SpringsCreek had a population estimate of 348 fish and a densityof 35.9 fish/100m2(Corsi and Elle 1989). In 1993,only 6 fish were capturedfrom the samesite. In 1987,the site below Deer Creekhad a populationestimate of 108 fish and a density of I 1.1 fislii 100 m2(Corsi and Elle 1989). In 1993,the samesite had a population estimateof 16 fish and a density of 1.6fish/100 m2.

. The reasonfor thesedeclines is not clear. It is possiblethe decline is relatedto droughtduring the late 1980's and early 1990's. It is also possiblethat whirling disease,which hasrecently beendetected in the drainage(Steve Elle, Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,personal communication), is linked to the decline. However, fuither study is neededbefore any conclusions can be drawn.

In lg34,CarlHubbscollected2rainbowtrou!abulltrout,andashortheadsculpinfromthemainstem befween Badger Creek and Wet Creek (UMMZ).

Table 34. Summary of electrofishing data from mainstem Little Lost River (including Sawmill Creek).

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/i00 m2 Rb BK BI Source Near Howe below first road 9/83 nla 88 Corsiet al.1986 culvert north of Howe Near Howe below first road 10/70^ n/a 100 Andrews1972 culvert north of Howe Below Big SpringsCreek 9/93 nla 100 presentstudy Below Big SpringsCreek 8187 35.9 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 Below Big SpringsCreek l0/70 nla 100 Andrews1972

74 Table34. Continued.

Species Composition (%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m'z Rb BK BI Source Below Buck and Bird Road 9t93 1.6 92 8 presentstudy Below Buck and Bird Road 8t87 11.1 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 b b Between Badger and Wet 7/34 nla UMl,[Z Creek Clyde Campground 9/93 14.3 96 I 3 presentstudy Clyde Campground 1t/87 nla 64 34" 2 Corsi& Elle 1989 Clyde Campground 7/87 28.2 95 I 4 Corsi& Elle 1989 BLM Sawmill#A - Lower end 7197 1.8 71 14 14 presentstudy of lower pasture BLM Sawmill#4 - Lower end 8193 2.7 93 7 presentstudy of lower pasture

aa BLM Sawmill #4 - Lower end 7187 4.1 45 JJ 22 Corsi& Elle 1989 of lower pasture

4a A BLM Sawmill#4 - Lower end 7/86 5.2d'" /J 23 Elleet al.1987 of lower pasture

BLM Sawmill#4 - Lower end 7/85 1.0d 100 Elle et al. 1987 of lower pasture BLM Sawmill# - Lower end r0/84 L0d 67 33 Elleet al.1987 of lower pasture BLM Sawmill# - Lower end 10170 nla 100 Andrews7972 of lower pasture BLM Sawmill#3 - Above 7/97 2.2 75 17 presentstudy Mahogany Creek Rd crossing BLM Sawmill#3 - Above 8t93 2.0 70 20 10 presentstudy Mahogany Creek Rd crossing BLM Sawmill#3 - Above 7/87 2.2 68 18 14 Corsi& Elle 1989 Mahogany Creek Rd crossing BLM Sawmill#3 - Above 7/86 1.3d 64 l8 18 Elle et al. 1987 Mahogany Creek Rd crossing BLM Sawmill #3 - Above 7/85 L6d 22 56 22 Elleet al.1987 Mahogany Creek Rd crossing BLM Sawmlll#3 - Above r0t84 3.0d 59 l2 29 Elleet al.7987 Mahogany Creek Rd crossing

75 Table34. Continued.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb Bk BI Source BLM Sawmill#2 - Lower 7/97 3.5 93 7 presentstudy portion of upper exclosure BLM Sawmill#2 - Lower 8193 6.6t 932 5 presentstudy portion of upper exclosure BLM Sawmill#2 - Lower 7/87 1.5 43 57 Corsi& Elle 1989 portion of upper exclosure

li BLM Sawmill#2 - Lower 7186 3.7d 50 l.+ 36 Elleet al.1987 portion of upper exclosure

BLM Sawmill#2 - Lower 7185 4.4d 50 t2 38 Elleet al.1987 portion of upper exclosure BLM Sawmill#z - Lower r0/84 4.ld 80 l3 7 Elle et al. 1987 portion of upper exclosure BLM Sawmill #1 - 2.4km 7197 5.7 90 3 presentstudy below Sawmill Canyon Rd BLM Sawmill #1 - 2.4km 8193 7.0 91 presentstudy below Sawmill CanyonRd BLM Sawmill #1 - 2.4km 7187 6.2 77 t7 6 Corsi& Elle 1989 below Sawmill Canyon Rd BLM Sawmill#l -2.4km 7/86 3.ld 72 12 16 Elleet al.1987 below Sawmill Canyon Rd BLM Sawmill #1 - 2.4km 7185 3.7d 48 11 4l Elleet al.1987 below Sawmill Canyon Rd BLM Sawmlllffi -2.4km l0/84 ). /* 72 11 l7 Elleet al.7987 below Sawmill CanyonRd

At Forest boundarys 7/97 4.2 92 J 5 presentstudy At Forest boundaryg 9/95 tl.2 93 4 3 presentstudy At Forest boundarys 7/87 7.1 89 2 9 Corsi& Elle 1989 At Forest boundarys l0/70 nla 86 14 Andrews1972 Behind Fairview Guard 7/97 6.4 87 11 3 presentstudy Stations

Behind Fairview Guard 9/95 8.1 93 4 3 presentstudy Stations

76 Table34.Continued.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source

Behind Fairview Guard 7/87 10.1 63 16 2l Corsi& Elle 1989 Stations

Above Mill Creeks 7/97 9.6 65 35 presentstudy

Above Mill Creeks 9/9s 8.8 80 l4 6 presentstudy Above Mill Creeks 7/87 7.8 51 t6 33 Corsi& Elle 1989

a 10 m above Iron Creek Road 8/97 nJa 39 J 58 presentstudy 10 m aboveIron CreekRoad 9/96 nla 60 40 presentstudy 0.4 km below Timber Creek 7197 4.5 48 52 presentstudy 0.4 km below Timber Creek 9/95 3.6 65 35 presentstudy 0.8 km aboveMoonshine Cks 7t97 8.1 13 87 presentstudy 0.8 km aboveMoonshine Cks 8t95 4.6 26 74 presentstudy 0.8 km aboveMoonshine Cks 7/87 3.9 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 0.8 km aboveMoonshine Cks 70170' nla 100 Andrews1972 1.6km aboveSmithie Fork 8/9s 20.4 100 presentstudy 400m aboveFirebox Creek 7197 wa 100 presentstudy u Andrews (1972) sampling locationswere in the approximatelocation of these sites with one exception. The site that is reportedhere under Sawmill (BLM #4) was approximately 1.6 km downstreamfrom the actual location of the Sawmill Creek (BLM #4) transect. b One bull trout 136mm, 2 rainbow trout 56 and 136mm. " Brook trout spawning. d Thedensitiesreportedforthese4streamsectionsonpage36ofElleetal.(1987)andpage32ofCorsiand Elle (1989) is inconect. Thesereports indicate thatlhenumber shown representsfish/l00 m2 when it is actually fish per 100 linear m of stream. The fish density in this report has been changedto fish/100 m2 basedon the populationestimate and sectionlength provided by Elle et al. (1987) and Corsi and Elle (1989) and the meanwidth of thesesections in 1987provided by Corsi and Elle (1989). " Due to an apparenttypographical error in Elle et al. (1987), the length of this transectwas reportedas 10 meters. However, basedon the population estimate and density indicated in the report, it appearsthis transectwas actually 100 meterslong. Therefore,the density reportedhere was calculatedfor a transect length of 100meters. r The BLM Sawmill transects were establishedin 1985 to monitor changes resulting from a habitat improvement project. Therefore,these sites have establishedlengths. However, when this transect was sampledin 1993,theBLM crew mistakenly sampledan extra44 metersoutside of the establishedtransect. These results include those fish captured in the additional section. e Although the 1987 sites were not relocated,the 1995 sites should be in the same approximate location.

77 Long Lost Creek

Long Lost Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Dry Creek. The point of origin seemsto vary dependingon runoff, but is approximately 10.3 km abovethe oonfluence with Dry Creek. From this point, the sfream flows 8.5 km on Forest land and 1.8 km on BLM land, where it entersDry Creek. Aerial photographsand personalobservations indicate that in someyears, sectionsof the stream are irftermittent. A waterfall, approximately 10 m high, is locatedon Long Lost Creek 4.0 km above its confluence with Dry Creek, and 1.8 km abovethe Forest boundary. This waterfall serves as a complete fish migration barrier. There are 3 lakes in Long Lost Creek (see Shadow Lake #i (lower), Shadow Lake #2 (upper), and Long Lost Creek Lake in Part 4).

No fish were found in Long Lost Creek. In 1995,Long Lost Creek was elecffofishedat 4 locations (Appendix A). The first transectwas approximately 50 m long and was located 3.2 km above Dry Creek (below the falls). The secondtransect was approximately80 m long and located0.8 km abovethe falls. The third transect was approximately 100 m long and located 1.5 km below Hell Canyon Creek" The fourth transectwas approximately 100 m long and was located 100 m abovethe third transect. No fish were found at any of these sites despitethe upper 2 transectshaving good stream flows and habitat. It is possible that fish from Dry Creek intermittently occupy the lower reach of Long Lost Creek below the falls. However, the intermittent nature of the stream does not allow it to support a permanentfish population.

Magpie Springs

Magpie Springs is a seriesof springs located in the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range betweenBasinger Canyon and Mahogany Creek. Water from the springs flows approximately I km where it is diverted into a canal at the Forest boundary. This canal terminates in the Telford Pipeline (see Bell Mountain Creek). A visual check of approximately 5 m of the outflow between the springs and cartal revealedlimited flows (approximately 0.5 m wide and 0.1 m deep) and poor habitat (Appendix A). No fish were observed.

Mahogany Creek

Mahogany Creek, located in the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. The point of origin is a spring 1.8 km abovethe Forest Boundary. The streamis diverted at the Forest boundary into a canalthat terminatesin the Telford Pipeline (seeBell Mountain Creek). There has been severedownward erosion of the streamchannel; nenly two meters in areas.

No fish were found in Mahogany Creek (Appendix A). In June 1995, atotal of approximately 75 m of stream was electrofished andlor visually surveyed at 3 separatelocations above the diversion. The canal was also eleotrofishedfor approximately 20 m 200 m below the diversion. No fish were found at any of theselocations.

78 Main Fork Little Lost River

The sectionof the Little Lost River aboveTimber Creek is sometimesreferred to asMain Fork Little Lost River. For purposesof uniformity and clarity, the mainstemfrom the sinks to the headwaters,including Sawmill Creek and Main Fork Little Lost River, is treated as part of the mainstem of the Little Lost River. Therefore,information pertaining to the Main Fork Little Lost River reach can be found under that heading (seeLittle Lost River, Mainstem).

Massacre Creek

Massacre Creek, located in the central portion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to SquawCreek. MassacreCreek originatesat a spring 1.1 km abovethe confluencewith Squaw Creek. This portion ofthe streamis on BLM land. There is someperennial water in the headofthe canyon,but it is limited and not connectedto the lower stream reach.

In lggT,rainbowtroutwerefound in MassacreCreek (Table 35, Appendices A andB). A 200 m long sectionof MassacreCreek beginning 40 m aboveSquaw Creek was electrofishedin July 1997. Two fish were observedbut uncaptured. One of these was positively identified as a rainbow trout.

Table 35. Summary of electrofishing data from MassacreCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m'z Rb BK Bl Source

40 m above Squaw Creek 7197 nla 100 presentstudy

Meadow Creek

Meadow Creek, atributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is locatedin the central portion of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of an August 1979 aeialphotograph and a field check at the Forest boundary on June 28,1995 indicated there are no perennial streamsin Meadow Creek above the unnamed tributary near the Forest boundary. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conducted on Meadow Creek and the unnamedtributary (grouped collectively as "Meadow Creek" by the inventory crew) in 1997 (Appendix F).

This unnamedtributary originatesat a spring in an unnamed canyon north of Meadow Creek. The stream flows for i.3 km on the Forest and acrossBLM, where it intermittently reachesthe Little Lost River.

79 In 1995,brook trout andrainbow trout were found in this tributary(Table 36, Appendices A andB). Brooktrout werethe dominantspecies, comprising 88% of the fish sampled.One of thefish collectedat this site may have beena pure cutthroattrout. The streamwas alsoelectrofished and visually surveyedfor approximately50 m 0.8km abovethe Forest boundary. No fish werecollected at this site. This indicatesthe upperlimit of fish distributionextends just abovethe Forestboundary.

Table36. Summaryof eleotrofishingdata from an unnamedtributary to MeadowCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK B1 Source

At Forest boundary 6/9s 35.s 120 88 presentstudy

0.8 km aboveForest 6t95 none presentstudy boundary o One of these fish may have been a pure cuffhroat trout'

Middle Canyon

Middle Canyon is located in the southernend of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of aerial photographstaken in July 1979 indicated there are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage.

MiIl Creek

Mill Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Mill Creek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph,but the streamappears to be approximately 5.5 km long. There is one lake in Mill Creek (seeMill Creek Lake in Part 4). Stream temperatureswere monitored in Mill Creek in 1996(Appendix D) and 1997(Appendix E). The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on Mill Creek in 1994 (Appendix F).

Rainbow trout, cutthroat trout, and grayling have been stocked in Mill Creek Lake. However, outmigration of thesespecies into Mill Creek is not possiblebecause there is no overlandoutlet fiom the lake to Mill Creek. Brook trout and cutthroattrout may havebeen introduced into Mill Creek. However, the nature of the stocking records make this determination difficult.

Brook trout, rainbow trout, and bull trout were found in Mill Creek (Table 37, AppendicesA and B)' In l995,Mill Creekwas samplednear the trailhead. Brook trout were the dominant species,comprising 52%6 of the fish captured. Hybridization between brook trout and bull trout was also evident. This site was resampledin 1997(Table 37, AppendicesA and B). Although densitiesremained relatively unchanged,the bull trout composition dropped from 36Yoto 4Yo. These numbers may have been skewedby the ability to distinguishhybrids improving between1995 and 1997.

80 Table37. Summaryof electrofishingdatafrom Mill Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source At Mill CreekCampground 819'7 20.7 393 4 presentstudy At Mill CreekCampground 8t95 20.0 12 52 36 presentstudy

aa 0.5km abovetrailhead 9t96 nla 67 JJ presentstudy o One rainbow trout was observedwithin the transectbut not captured; 3 of the 6 fish captured showed evidenceof hybridization.

ln !996,two additional siteswere sampledin Mill Creek (Table 37 and Appendices A and B). The first site was located in the main channel of Mill Creek approximately 0.5 km above the trailhead. Hybridization betweenbrook trout and bull trout appearedto be extensive in this reach with 3 of the 6 fish capturedshowing evidenceof hybridization. A small tributary that entersMill Creek approximately 0.5 km abovethe trailhead was electrofishedfor approximately25 m. No fish were found. The small nature of this tributary limits fish habitat. Thereare not sufficient datato clearly determinewhether or not fluvial fish utilize Mill Creek for spawning.

In 1994,a Forest Servicehabitatcrew observedbult trout in Mill Creek up to the landslidethat forms Mill Creek Lake (Brett Gamett,USFS, personalcommunication). Migration further up the stream and into the lake is prohibited by the landslide. In August 1995,no fish were found in a visual survey of Mill Creek above the lake (Appendix A).

Recreation activity associatedwith the trailhead is negatively impacting the north stream bank near the trailhead. In June 1996, bank stability along the north bank (the same side as the trailhead) was approximately ll%(Jeff Knisley, USFS, personalcommunication). This oould be remediedby relocatingthe trailhead and campground.

Moffett Creek (including Moffett Springs)

Moffett Creek, located in the upper central portion of the Little Lost River Valley, is a tributary to Barney Creek. The stream originates at Moffett Springs. The stream temperaturenear the Howe-Clyde- Goldburgroad on May 20,1996 andMay 3l,1997 was 16"C.

Moffett Springs

See Moffett Creek

8l Moonshine Creek

Moonshine Creek, a tributary to the mainstemof the Little Lost River, is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Moonshine Creek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph,but the stream appearsto be approximately1.5 km long.

Despite good habitat,no fish were found in MoonshineCreek (AppendixA). In Septemberl995,two seotionsof Moonshine Creek were electrofished. The first section,located immediately below the Sawmill Canyon Road, was electrofishedfor approximately5 m. The secondsection, located immediately abovethe Sawmill Canyon Road, was electrofished for approximately 20 m. No fish were found at either location. Another 72 m section located 250 m above the Sawmill Canyon Road was electrofished in June 1997. Likewise, no fish were found at this site. The culvert under road #101 may be restricting fish movement into the stream.

Mormon Gulch

Mormon Gulch is locatedin the southernend of the Lemhi Mountain Range. A review of an aerial photograph taken August 1979 indicated there are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage.

Mud Springs

See Cedar Run Canyon

North Creek

North Creek, located in the southernend ofthe Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. A review of aerial photographsindicate North Creek originates at a spring 2.5 km above the Forest boundary. At the Forest boundary,the streamis diverted for irrigation. The entire stream is on Forest land with the exception of 0.5 km that is private. It appearsfrom vegetation patterns that undiverted water intermittently flows for about 1 km pastthe diversion, where it sinks into the alluvial fan. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on North Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995,one rainbow trout was capturedin North Creek (Table 38, AppendicesA and B). Two sites were sampledin August 1995. The first site was located 0.4 km above the Forest boundary. One rainbow trout approximate$ 100 mm in length was captured. Oncethe presenceof fish in the streamwas confirmed, samplingwas discontinued. Therefore, only2m of sffeamwere sampled. The secondsite, approximately 0'8 km abovethe Forestboundary was electrofishedfor approximately40 m. No fish were collected at this site'

82 Table 38. Summary of electrofishing data from North Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

0.4 km aboveForest 8/95 n/a 100 presentstudy boundary

0.8 km aboveForest 8/95 none presentstudy boundary

North Fork (Cedarville Canyon)

SeeCedarville Canyon

Pine Creek

Pine Creek, located in the centralportion of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Basin Creek. Pine Creek originatesat a spring on ForestLand2.O km aboveBasin Creek. Basedon a review of an aerial photograph,flows are limited. The water temperaturenear the souroeof Pine Creekwas I 3 " C in 1997.

No fish have beenfound in Pine Creek. No fish were observedin Pine Creek in the summer of 1995 (JanetValle, USFS, personaloommunication). In June1997, a 100m sectionof Pine Creek located I km aboveBasin Creekwas visually surveyed.No fish were found. Likewise, in September1997, a ForestService R1/R4 fish habitat crew found no fish in a visual survey of a 50 m reach of Pine Creek immediately above Basin Creek. Although no fish were observed,there was suitable fish habitat in this section.

Quigley Creek

Quigley Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Quigley Creek could not be clearly determinedfrom an aerialphotograph but the streamappears to be approximately 2.5 km long. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al' 1997) was conducted on the fish bearing portion of Quigley Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

A single bull trout was found in Quigley Creek in 1997(Table 39, AppendicesA and B). Two sectionsof Quigley Creek were sampledin June 1997. The first was a2l m section25 m abovethe Sawmill Canyon Road. A single bull trout measuring 195 mm was capturedat this site. The secondsection was an 87 m section located 200 m above the Sawmill Canyon Road. Although good habitat was present at this site, no fish were found. A seriesof old decadentbeaver dams immediately below this site may be interfering with the movement of fish into this reach.

83 Table 39. Summary of electrofishing data from Quigley Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

25 m aboveSawmill 6t97 nla 100 presentstudy Canyon Rd

200 m above Sawmill 6t97 none presentstudy Canyon Rd

Redrock Creek

Redrock Creek, atributary to Timber Creek, is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Redrock Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appearsto be approximately 2.5 km long. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on Redrock Creek between Timber Creek and the forks in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995 and1997,bull trout werefound in RedrockCreek (Table 40, AppendicesA andB). In 1995, a 42 m section of stream 200 m above Timber Creek was electrofished. In 7997, another90 m section of stream below rcad 460A was electrofished. Bull trout were found at both sites.

ln 1997,no fish were found in the right and left hand forks of Redrock Creek (Appendix A). A 52 m sectionof the right fork located400 m abovethe left fork was electrofishedin Jwe 1997. At this sametime, a56 m section of the left fork located 200 m abovethe right fork was also electrofished. No fish were found at either site. The lack of bull trout in the right and left hand forks suggeststhat the distribution of bull trout in Redrock Creek extends upstreamto the forks.

Table 40. Summary of electrofishing data from Redrock Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m'z Rb BK BI Source 0.2 km aboveTimber Creek 9195 nla 100 presentstudy Top end of transectis 6t97 nla 100 presentstudy road4604 Right fork 400 m aboveleft 6197 none presentstudy fork Left fork 200m aboveright 6197 none presentstudy fork

84 Roclqy Run Creek (Sunny Bar Canyon)

Rocky Run Creek, located in the southernend of the Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. Rocky Run Creek is diverted into a pipeline approximately 0.8 km below the Forest boundary.

No fish were found in Rocky Run Creek(Appendix A). A 101m sectionof the streamlocated 0.5 km abovethe diversion was electrofishedin July 1997. No fish were found. Due to the small natureof the stream and steep stream gradient (17% map gradient), fish habitat is limited.

SandsCanyon

SandsCanyon is located in the southernend of the Lost River Mountain Range. Based on a field review in October 1996, there are no perennial streamsin the drainage.

SandsCreek

SandsCreek, locatedin the centralportion of the Lost River Mountain Range, is a tributary to Wet Creek. A review of an aerial photographindicates Sands Creek originateson Forest land at a spring 4.3 km above its confluencewith Wet Creek. SandsCreek flows for 2.4krn on ForestLand,1.3 km on private land, and 0.6 km on BLM land. In July l99l,therehad beenextensive beaver activity along SandsCreek on Forest land. The water temperaturenear the springsin the right fork were 6 and7"C in 1997. In the left fork near the sourcesprings, the water temperaturewas l2"C in 1997.

No fish were found in SandsCreek (Appendix A). Forty metersof streamwere electrofished200 m above the Forest boundary. Another 100 m sectionlocated 1.2km abovethe Forestboundary was also electrofished. In addition, two beaver ponds 0.8 krn above the Forest boundary were visually surveyed. Despite moderateflows and large, relatively deepbeaver ponds, no fish were found. It is possible that fish have not been able to naturally gain accessto the upper portion of SandsCreek due to the nature of the lower reach of stream.

Sawmill Canyon

Seeindividual streams

Sawmill Creek

The sectionof the Little Lost River betweenSummit Creek and Timber Creekis sometimesrefered to asSawmill Creek. The streambelow this reachis theLittle Lost Riverand the streamabove this reachis

85 the Main Fork Little Lost River. For purposesof uniformrty and clarity, the mainstem from the sinks to the headwaters,including Sawmill Creek and Main Fork Little Lost River, is treated as part of the mainstem of the Little Lost River. Therefore,information pertainingto the Sawmill Creek reachcan be found under that heading (see Little Lost River, Mainstem).

Sixmile Canyon

Sixmile Canyon is located in the southern end of the Lost River Mountain Range. There are no perennial streamsin this subdrainage(personal observation).

Slide Creek

Slide Creek, atributary to Timber Creek, is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Slide Creek could notbe clearly determinedfrom an aerial photograph,but it appearsto be approximately2 km long. The Forest ServiceRllR4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton etal.1997)was conductedon the fish bearing portion of Slide Creek in 1997(Appendix F).

In 1997,bulltrout werefound in SlideCreek (Table 41, AppendicesA andB). Two sectionsof Slide Creek were electrofished. The firstwas a 107m sectionlocated 100m aboveTimber Creek. Eight bull trout were captured at this site. Although a population estimate was not completed, the small number of fish collected indicatesthe density is low. The secondelectrofishing site was a65 m section0.9 km aboveTimber Creek. Despite high quality habitatno fish were found. It may be that a gradientbanier betweenthe first and secondsampling sites prevents fish from accessingthe upper reach of Slide Creek.

Table 41. Summary of electrofishing datafrom Slide Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source 100m aboveTimber Creek 6197 nla 100 presentstudy 0.9km aboveTimber Creek 6t97 presentstudy

Smithie F''ork

SmithieFork, a tibutary to themainstem of theLittle LostRiver, is locatedin SawmillCanyon' The originof SmithieFork is a seriesof springsnearthe head ofthe right fork ofthe canyon.The stream is 6'0 km long. Streamtemperatures.were monitored in SmithieFork in 1997(Appendix E). TheForest Service R1/R4

86 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conductedon Smithie Fork in 1994(Appendix F). The unnamedtributaries (describedas "right fork" and "west fork" by the inventory crew) were inventoried in 1997 (Appendix F). At thattime, a Forest Service habitat crew found a falls approximately 1.5 m high located on Smithie Fork in reach2 of the survey

Although a large fire burnedmost of the drainagein 1988,fish populationsand habitat are in excellent condition. In 1988,an intensecrown fire burned approximately75% of the Smithie Fork drainage. Prior to this fire, approximately 95% of the streamriparian areawas dominatedby large coniferoustrees. Following the fire, live large coniferoustrees remained along only 14o/oofthe stream(review of aerial photographsfrom 1979, i987, and 1991). Following thefne,adense, lush, deciduousriparian areadeveloped along the stream. By l994,bank stability along the main streamranged from94-99o/s (Appendix F). Percentsurface fines were ll-14%. Large burned treesfalling into the streamhave increasedfhe amount of large woody debris in the stream. This appearsto have increasedhabitat complexity, the number and size of pools, and cover.

ln 1995,bull trout and rainbow trout were found in Smithie Fork (Table 42, AppendicesA and B). At the upper site,the bull trout densitywas 30.3 fish/l00 m2(fish >70 mm). This is the highestbull trout density ever reportedin the Little Lost River drainage. Basedon ageat length datafor bull trout in the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989)and length frequencydata from samplingin 1995,approximately 90% of the bull trout in Smithie Fork are age one or age2 fish. Bull trout young-of-the-yearmeasuring between 30 and 52 mm in length were also capturedand observedat the upper sampling site in August 1995. In 1994, bull trout were found nearthe sourceof the stream(Brett Gamett,USFS, personal communication), indicating bull troutoccupythemajorityofthestreamreach.InTggT,thelowersitewasresampled(Table42).In1997,one 'oWest bull trout was found in a 45 m sectionof the unnamedtributary to Smithie Fork (tenned Fork Smithie Creek by the Forest ServioeR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory crew) locatedapproximately 4 km above the Little Lost River (Table 42, AppendicesA and B).

Table 42. Summary of electrofishing data from Smithie Fork.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

Just above Sawmill Road 7/97 20.r 97 presentstudy Bridge

Just above Sawmill Road 819s 28.4 93 presentstudy Bridge

3.2km aboveLittle Lost B/95 30.3 100 presentstudy River

Unnamed tributary 9197 nla 100 presentstudy

Smithie Fork appearsto be one of the most important spawningand rearingtributaries for fluvial bull ffout in the Little Lost River drainage. On August 2,1995, one bull trout 364 mm in length was collected in

87 the upper transectand anotherapproximately 400 mm in length was observed. These fish appearedto be a spawning pair and are likely fluvial fish from the mainstem that had moved into the stream to spawn. The presenceof thesefish and the length frequencydistribution suggestSmithie Fork is usedby fluvial bull trout for spawning and rearing.

Rainbow trout densitiesin Smithie Fork are low, and their rangeappears to be restrictedto the lower portion of the stream. It appearsthat rainbow trout have moved into Smithie Fork since 1987.

South Creek

South Creek, located in the southem end of the Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunct from the Little Lost River. A review of aerial photographsindicates South Creek originates at a springnear the headofthe canyon. The streamflows approximately 8.5 km where, when undiverted, it sinks into the South Creek alluvial fan; 6 .4 km of the stream are on Forest land, 0.3 on BLM land, and 1.8 on private land. There is an irrigation diversionjust below the ForestBoundary. Overflow from the diversion continuesonto the alluvial fan, where it sinks before reaching the Little Lost River. The Forest ServioeR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon South Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995,rainbow trout were found in South Creek (Table 43, AppendicesA and B). Although the streamgradient at the site 2.0 km above the Forest boundary was 8oZ(field gradient), the density was 33.9 fish/|00 m2. The lack of fish at the upper site suggestsfish occupy approximatelythe lower half of the stream.

In 1998,the Idaho Division of EnvironmentalQuality sampleda 100m sectionof SouthCreek located 60 m above the diversion (Table 43). This was doneto help confirm the absenceof bull trout and sculpin in this stream. As in 1995, only rainbow trout were found'

Table 43. Summary of electrofishing data from South Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

At diversion 6/95 nla 100 presentstudy

60 m abovediversion 7198 ZJ.J 100 IdahoDivision of Environmental Quality frle data

200 m above diversion 8/95 none presentstudy

2.0 km aboveForest 8195 33.9 100 presentstudy boundary

3.2km aboveForest 8195 none presentstudy boundary

88 Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon)

SquawCreek,atributarytotheLittleLostRiver(Sawmill Creek),is locatedin Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Squaw Creek could not be clearly determined,but it is at least 4.3 km long. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Squaw Creek in 1997 (Appendix E). The Forest Service Rl/R4 Fish Habitat Standard Inventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conductedon the lower andmid reachof SquawCreek in 1994(Appendix F). The upper reachof SquawCreek and anunnamedtributary (describedas "south fork" by the survey crew) were inventoried in 1997 (Appendix F). ln 1994,the Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory crew found awaterfall approximately 1 m high locatedon SquawCreek below North Fork Squaw Creek. It is likely this fall is interfering with fish passageinto the upper reach of the stream.

Rainbow trout, brook trout, bull trout, and sculpinwere found in SquawCreek (Table 44, Appendices A and B). Squaw Creek was sampledin 1995, 1996, and 1997. Brook trout are the dominant speciesat all but the upper site. Several of the fish capturedat the site 4.0 krn above the Sawmill Canyon Road showed signs of hybridization. Hybridization was not evident at the other sites. Only bull trout were found in the upper site, which had a7.\Yo gradient(field gradient). The lower sampling sites in which brook trout were found had streamgradients of 4.6 and 3.6%. This suggeststhat streamgradient may be affecting brook trout distribution within Squaw Creek. Fish appearto occupy the majority of the streamreaoh.

Table 44. Summary of electrofis hing datafrom Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon drainage).

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

aa 0.8 km aboveSawmill 9196 fila JJ 52 l5 presentstudy Canyon Rd

4.0 krn above Sawmill 7/97 24.r 41 48 l1 presentstudy Canyon Rd

4.0 km aboveSawmill 8t9s t2.3 58 t9 presentstudy Canyon Rd

0.9 km above North Fork 8196 nla 100 presentstudy

aa Unnamed tributary above 8l9s nla JJ 67 presentstudy Squaw Creek #2 on south side of road

Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon)o North Fork

North Fork SquawCreek, atributary to SquawCreek, is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of North Fork Squaw Creek could not be clearly determined,but the streamappears to be approximately 5 km

89 long. The Forest Service Rl/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on North Fork Squaw Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1996 and 1997, brook trout and bull trout were found in North Fork Squaw Creek (Table 45, Appendices A and B). In 1996,a 57 m sectionof North Fork SquawCreek located 0.6 km above Squaw Creek was electrofished. Both brook trout and bull trout were captured. Brook trout were the dominant speciescomprising 56Yoof the trout collected. In 1997,a ll4 m sectionof streamlocated 1.8 km above Squaw Creek was electrofished. At this section, only one of the 12 fish capturedwas a brook trout; the remainder were bull trout.

Table 45. Summary of electrofishingdxa from Squaw Creek (Sawmill Canyon), North Fork.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source

0.6 km above SquawCreek 9t96 nla 56 44 presentstudy

1.8 km above SquawCreek 6t97 nla 13 88 presentstudy

Squaw Creek (Wet Creek)

Squaw Creek, located in the centralportion of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to Wet Creek. The exact point of origin was not determined. However, aerial photographstaken in August 1979 and September1991 indicatethe origin of SquawCreek is approximately 11.4 km abovethe confluencewith Wet Creek (3.2km abovethe confluencewith MassacreCreek). On thesephotographs, it appearedthat portions of Squaw Creek aboveMassacre Creek were dry during the low water year of 1991, although beaver ponds continued to hold water. Squaw Springs, a seriesof large springs approximately I km above Wet Creek, contribute most of the streamflow to lower SquawCreek. A reachof SquawCreek between Massacre Creek and SquawSprings was dry during the droughtofthe late 1980'sand early 1990's(Pat Koelsch,BLM, personal communication). Stream temperatureswere monitored in Squaw Creek below Squaw Springs in 1997 (Appendix E).

Rainbow trout and sculpin were found in Squaw Creek (Table 46, Appendices A and B)' In 1992, two siteswere samplednear the confluencewith Wet Creek. Trout densitieshave declined in both of these sectionssince 1987 (Table 46). This decline may be associatedwith a similar decline in Wet Creek (seeWet Creek). ln 1996,a 30 m streamreach approximately 1.9 km below MassacreCreek was sampled. Rainbow troutwere collected atthis site. ln1997,a 100m sectionof stream65 m aboveMassacle Creekwas sampled. Likewise, rainbow trout were found at this location. Sculpin were collected from all 4 sampling locations. Although bull trout were collected in the lower 2 sitesin 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989),they were not collected in Squaw Creek during the present study.

90 Table 46. Summary of electrofishing data from Squaw Creek (Wet Creek).

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

Just above Wet Creek Road 8t92 43.9 100 presentstudy

Just above Wet Creek Road 8/87 79.0 g7b Corsiand Elle 1989

168m above#l 8t92 36.2 100 presentstudy

168rn above#1 8t87 57.8^ 99 Corsiand Elle 1989

L9 km below MassacreCreek 6t96 n/a 100 presentstudy

65 m aboveMassacre Creek "7197 nla 100 presentstudy IFD file data indicatesthere was an eror in the 7987mean streamwidth datasupplied to the Department ofFish and Game for SquawCreek. Subsequently,the fish densitiesshown for SquawCreek in Corsi and Elle (1989) were incorrect. Densitiesfor SquawCreek in 1987shown here have beenrecaloulated based on the streamwidth in 1992. For this reasonthey do not match thosereported for Squaw Creek in 1987 by Corsi and Elle (1989). Two percent of the fish capturedwere listed as rainbodcutthroat hybrids.

The lower reach of Squaw Creek may be an important spawning area for rainbow trout. The reach of tlre streambelow Squaw Springshas excellent spawningand rearing habitat(IFD file data). In the spring of 1992, many rainbow trout were observed spawning in section I (IFD file data). The majority of fish collectedin this reachin August 1992wete under 130mm.

SummerhouseCanvon

SummerhouseCanyon Creek, located west of Sawmill Canyon in the Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from Summit Creek. The point of origin is not clear. In July 1995, the point of origin appearedto be a spring in the head of the canyon3.2km abovethe Forestboundary. However, aerial photographstaken on August 2, 1979and August 9, lggl suggestportions of the stream1.8 km below this spring may be dry by late summer. Assuming this is true, the perennialportion of the streambegins 1.4 km abovethe Forest boundary and continues for approximately 3.2km acrossBLM land, where it sinks into the valley floor. Additional water is contributed to the stream from a small tributary which originates at a spring near the canyon mouth and flows for approximately 1.2 km to SummerhouseCanyon Creek. Streamtemperatures were monitored in SummerhouseCreek in 1997 (Appendix E).

No fish were found in SummerhouseCanyon Creek (Appendix A). The stream was surveyed at 4 locations. Three sectionswere electrofished. Theseincluded a 100 m section approximately 1.2 km below the Forest boundary,a 50 m section 1.6km abovethe Forestboundary, and a 100m section3.21

91 Summit Creek

Summit Creek, locatedin the upper, centralportion of the Little Lost River Valley, is a tributary to the Little Lost River. Summit Creek originatesat springsbelow Summit CreekReservoir and flows 19.3km to the mainstem of the Little Lost River. There is one reservoir in the drainage (see Summit Creek Reservoir in Part 4). A small canal brings water from Big Gulch Creek in the PahsimeroiRiver drainageinto the upper portion of the Summit Creek drainageabove Summit Creek Reservoir. Water from this canal intermittently runs into Summit CreekReservoir. As a result, it may be possiblefor fish (particularlybull trout and shorthead sculpin which arepresent in Big Gulch Creek)to move from the PahsimeroiRiver drainageinto the Little Lost River drainage. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon Summit Creek abovethe Summit CreekCampground in 1995(Appendix F).

The majority of Summit Creek originates at Iron Springs, which has relatively constant flow and temperature.In both August 1977 andAugust 1978,thestream flow 0.8 km below Iron Springswas 0.27 m3ls,despite 1977being a dry year (Keller etal.1979). Between Januaryl0 and May 10, 1978, stream temperaturesnearthe springsremained between 9"C and 13"C. However,3.2 km downstream,stream temperaturesfluctuated between 1"C and l6'C. On May 19,1998,the water temperatureat Iron Springs varied between 9 and 10'C depending on the individual spring. Stream temperatureswere monitored in Summit Creek in 1994,1995(Appendix D), and 1997(Appendix E).

The relatively constant temperature and flow in the upper portion of the stream provides an excellent spawning and winterin g areafor trout. Keller et al. (1979) reported "Idaho Department of Fish and Game Biologists believe that the upper few miles of Summit Creekfurnish most of the spawninghabitat for the entire Little Lost fuver and that it is amajor wintering areafor fish escapingthe harshwinter environment lower in the drainage."

The Idaho Departmentof Fish and Gameand Bureau of Land Managementhave implementedhabitat improvementprojects in the upperportion ofthe stream. The objectivesof theseprojects were to improve and protect fish habitat and increasetrout densities. In 1968,an experimentaltrash collector was constructedon upperSummitCreek,andtroutpopulationsincreasedinthevicinity(USRfiledata).In I9Tl,ninemoretrash collectors and 12 bridge timbers and plankswere installed in the streambetween 0.4 km and 7.2 km below Iron Springs. By 1997,most of thesestructures were dysfunctional(personal observation).

In I97 5,3 .2 km of Summit Creeknear the BLM campgroundwere fencedto protect the riparian area and improve fish habitat. The project and improvementsin the fish population and habitat are described in detail by Keller and Burnham (1982) and Keller et al. (1979). The project, which created a 122 hectare exclosure,resulted in dramatic improvementsin the streamand riparian habitat and the trout population. By 1978, therc had been a subsequentincrease in bank stability, reinvigoration of birch and willow along the stream,a generalnarrowing and deepeningof the stream,and the establishmentof islandsofvegetation within the stream. By 1979, trout densities were higher in the ungrazed section relative to the grazed section (Table 47).

92 Table 47 . Mean trout densitiesfor three grazed(untreated) a:rd three nngrazedsections (treated) of Summit Creek in 1979 (adaptedfrom Keller and Burnham 1982).

Mean Density (fish/100m2)

Species GruzedSections Unsrazed Sections Rainbowtrout 77.6 111.3 Brook trout 4.9 17.1 All trout 82.s 128.4

Rainbow trout, brook trout, bull trout, and sculpin were found in Summit Creek during the present study (Table 48, AppendicesA and B). In 1992,three sectionsof Summit Creekwere sampledbelow the Sawmill CanyonRoad. Rainbow trout were the only speciescollected atthe upper2 sites,while rainbow trout and lessernumbers of brook trout were captured at the lower site. Two additional sites were sampled near Iron Springsin 1997. Rainbow trout were collectedat thesesites.

Table 48. Summary of electrofishingdata from Summit Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source Near mouth 8t87 40.4 99 1 Corsiand Elle 1989 4.0 km belowSawmill Road 8192 16.0 91 9 presentstudy (BLM #3)

4.0km belowSawmill Road 818"1 26.4 82 18 Corsiand Elle 1989 (BLM #3)

1.6km belowSawmill Road 8/92 24.3 100 presentstudy (BL}|4#2)

1.6km belowSawmill Road 8187 18.7 91 Corsiand Elle 1989 (BLM #2)

0.8km belowSawmill Road 8192 39.4 100 presentstudy (BLM #1) .') At countyline 8/87 8.8 98 L Corsiand Elle 1989 0.4km belowSawmill Road 1019s nla 95 a^presentstudy 100m belowIron Spring 6/97 nla 100 presentstudy Iron Springs 6/97 nla 100 presentstudy

93 Although bull trout were not found in Summit Creek during sampling in 1992 and 1997, an angler caught 2 bull trout in Summit Creek at the Sawmill Canyon Road crossing in May 1995 (Dan Cunderman, USFS, personal communication). Likewise, a single bull trout approximately 200 mm long was captured 0.8 km downsffeamof this point during diseasesampling in October 1995 (Table 48, AppendicesA and B). Corsi and Elle (1989) also reportedsmall numbersof bull trout in Summit Creekin 1987(Table 48).

Five sculpinwere collectedand preservedfrom Summit Creek0.8 km below the Sawmill Canyon Road in 1995 (Appendix A). Thesefish were later identified as shorthead(Table 13).

Sunny Bar Canyon

SeeRocky Run Creek

Taylor Canyon

Taylor Canyon is located in the southern end of the Lost River Mountain Range. There are no perennial streamsin the subdrainage(personal observation).

Timber Creek

Timber Creek, a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek), is located in Sawmill Canyon. The origin of Timber Creek could not be clearly determined from an aerial photograph, but it appearsto be approximately 5.6 km long. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Timber Creek in 7997 (Appendix E). The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conducted on Timber Creek betweenthe Little Lost River and Slide Creek in 1994 (Appendix F). That portion of Timber Creek above Slide Creek was inventoriedin 1997(Appendix F).

In 1995,bull trout, rainbow trout, and sculpin were found in Timber Creek (Table 49, AppendicesA and B). In August 1995,a 133m sectionof streamlocated 0.8 km abovethe mainstemLittle Lost River (Sawmill Creek) was electrofished. Bull trout comprised86% of the trout captured,and rainbow trout made up the remainder. Rainbow trout were not found in this site in 1987 (Corsi and Elle 1989) and have likely moved into Timber Creek since that time. Basedon length at age datafor bull trout in the Little Lost River (Corsi and Elle 1989),it appearsapproximately 20% of the bull trout in this reachwere age one or younger. Most of the remaining bull trout appearedto be age2 (Appendix B). This may indicate that the lower reach of Timber Creek doesnot serye as a spawningarea for bull trout, but that fish move into this reach after age one. It is possiblethat bull trout spendtheir first summerin tributariessuch as Redrock Creek and Slide Creek, then move into lower Timber Creek at the end of their first summer. This section was resampled in 1997 GuUt" 49, AppendicesA and B). Fish densitieswere similar to other years.

94 Table49. Summaryof electrofishingdata from TimberCreek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

0.8 km aboveLittle Lost 7/97 6.9 95 presentstudy Riveru

0.8 km aboveLittle Lost 8/95 5.5 l7 83 presentstudy Riveru

0.8 km aboveLittle Lost 7187 7.5 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 Rivero

100 m above Slide Creek 6t97 nla l00b presentstudy " Although the 1987 site was not relocated,the 1995 site should be in the same general location. b Hook and line sample.

In July 1997,the streamwas sampledwith hook and line 100 m above Slide Creek. One bull trout 165 mm in length was captured. Approxim ately 5 other bull trout I 00 to 200 mm in length were observed. No rainbow trout were caught or observedat this site. The presenceof bull trout in this reach indicates that fish occupy most, if not all, of Timber Creek.

Six sculpin were collectedand preserved from the stream0.8 km abovethe mainstemof the Little Lost River. These were all later identified as shorthead(Table 13).

Uncle Ike Creek

Uncle Ike Creek, located in the southern end of the Lemhi Mountain Range, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. Uncle Ike Creek originatesat a seriesof springsnear the headof the canyonand flows for 8.2 km, where it is diverted into a pipeline immediately abovethe Forestboundary. The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997)was conductedon Uncle Ike Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

Uncle Ike Creekwas stockedwith 960 brook trout 19 to 25 cm long in I 953.

In 1995,rainbow trout and brook trout were found in Uncle Ike Creek (Table 50, AppendicesA and B). Fish appearto occupy approximately the lower half of the stream.

95 Table 50. Summaryof electrofishingdata from UncleIke Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m'z Rb BK BI Source

At diversion 9t95 nla 33 67 presentstudy

1.6 km abovediversion 9t95 nla 67 33 presentstudy

4.8 km aboveForest 9195 presentstudy boundary

Van Dorn Canyon

Van Dorn Canyon is located in the southern end of the Lost River Mountain Range. Perennial water is limited to springs near the head of the canyon which sink near their source(personal observation).

Warm Creek

Warm Creek, located in the centralportion of the Lemhi Mountain Range,is a tributary to the Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek). The streamoriginates at a spring 3.6 km above the confluence with the Little Lost River. It flows for 1.4 km on Forest,crosses BLM land for 1.3 km, re-entersand crossesForest land for 0.8 km, then re-entersBLM land and flows for 0.1 km to the mainstem. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton etal. 1997)was conductedon Warm Creek in 1997 (Appendix F).

In l995,rainbow trout and bull trout were found in Warm Creek (Table 51, Appendices A and B). Although fish appearto occupy the entire streamreach, only rainbow trout were found in the lower stream reach,andonly bull trout were found in the upper streamreach. It is not clear if the bull trout population is resident,migratory, or a combinationof both. However,the presenceof small bull trout indicatesreproduction is occurring.

96 Table 51. Summary of electrofishing data from Warm Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source 0.4 km aboveLittle Lost 6t95 6.7 100 presentstudy River 0.6km aboveupper Forest 6t95 nla 100" presentstudy boundary o Two other bull trout approximately 70 and 110 mm in length were seenin transect.

Warm Springs Creek

Warm SpringsCreek, locatedin the lower centralportion of the Little Lost River Valley, is disjunct from the Little Lost River. This stream is also referred to by some local residentsas Tiny Creek. Warm Springs Creek originatesat springson BLM land. Prior to October 199i, Warm SpringsCreek was diverted into a canal immediately below the highway (approximately0.4 km below the streamsource). Water flowed through this canal for approximately 1.5 km, then re-enteredthe natural streamchannel. In October 1991,the streamwas diverted back into the naturalstream channel. The streamnow flows for about4 km where it sinks into the valley floor. The water temperatureat the primary sourcespring for Warm SpringsCreek was 10'C on May 19,1998.

In 1993, rainbow trout were found in Warm Springs Creek (Table 52, AppendicesA and B). Numerous young-of-the-year rainbow trout were present'

Table 52. Summary of electrofishing datafrom Warm Springs Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m2 Rb BK BI Source

Immediatelybelow highway 8/93 24.8 100 presentstudy

Wet Creek

Wet Creek, locatedin the centralportion of the Lost River Mountain Range,is a tributary to the Little Lost River. Wet Creek originates near the Loristaca Campground and flows approximately 3 t km to the mainstem of the Little Lost River. The stream crossesapproximately 5 km of Forest land,2l km of BLM land,

97 3 km of private land, and 2 km of state land. Mangum (1983) stated that grazing within the Wet Creek drainage had reduced the ability of the aquatic ecosystemto support a macroinvertebratecommunity or a fishery. lnlgg5,grazingutilizationalong Wet Creekonthe Forestwas 40-69%(LRRD file data). However, the private land aboveCoal Creek hasbeen excluded from grazingfor about 5 years. Bruhn (1990) describes an extensive riparianfencing project on lower Wet Creekand the responseof the habitat and fish community. Streamtemperatures were monitored in Wet Creek in 1994, 1995,1996 (Appendix D), and 1997 (Appendix E). The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conducted on that portion of Wet Creek between the diversion structure above Hilts Creek and the 2 mhigh falls in 1996 (Appendix F). That portion of Wet Creekbetween Basin Creek and the diversion structureabove Hilts Creek were inventoried in 1997 (Appendix F).

A diversion structurethat was constructedon Wet Creek i.5 km abovethe Little Lost River in the 1970's(James Andreason, landowner, personal communication) was aflear completebarrier to upstreamfish migration (Pat Koelsch, BLM, personalcommunication). In 1992,the BLM, in cooperation with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game and the Challis National Forest, constructeda fish ladder at this diversion to provide fish passage.

Rainbow trout, bull trout, brook trout, and sculpin were found in Wet Creek (Table 53, Appendices A and B). With the exceptionof the extremeupper reach,rainbow trout are the dominant speciesthroughout Wet Creek and are the only salmonid speciesfound in the middle reach of the stream (Corsi and Elle 1989, presentstudy). Although brook trout are found throughoutBig Creek (a tributary to upper Wet Creek), this specieswas completely absentfrom Wet Creek in 1987(Corsi andElle 1989). During the presentstudy, they were found in Wet Creek only below the Pancheridiversion and immediately below the mouth of Big Creek. It appearsthat some factor or group of factors (possibly streamtemperature) is preventingbrook trout in Big Creek from expanding into Wet Creek.

A falls approximately 2min height is locatedon Wet Creek 1.5km aboveHilts Creek. It appearsthis fulls has acted as a completebamier to fish migration. Although there is good fish habitat available, no fish were found in the 135 m of streamthat were electrofishedabove lhese fulls in 1995(Table 53, Appendix A).

In 1995,a previously undocumentedlocalized population of bull trout was found in the upper reach of Wet Creek below thesefalls. Thesebull trout are generallyconfined to the 3.2 km stream reach between Coal Creek and the 2 mhigh falls 1.5km aboveHilts Creek.

It appearsthat this population is at leastpartially divided into two sub-populationsby an old diversion structureand gradientbarrier located0.8 km aboveHilts Creek. This diversion structureand gradientbarrier at least partially, if not totally, restrict the upstreammovement of fish. Sampling data suggestthat the bull trout found above this diversion and gradient barrier are resident fish and the population is comprised of less than 200 ageone and older bull trout. Rainbow trout comprisedbetween 28 and36%oof the fish sampled in this reach.

98 Table 53. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Wet Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/i00 m2 Rb BK BI Source

Just below Pancheri diversion 8/92 6.4 presentstudy _BL}|4#7

Just below Dry Creek hydro - 8192 r.2 75 25 presentstudy BLM#6^

Just below Dry Creek hydro - 8/87 5.4 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 BL.]|.l#6^

3.6 km below SquawCreek - 8/92 5.1 96 presentstudy BLM #5b

3.6 km below Squaw Creek - 8187 6.9 97 Corsi& Elle 1989 BLM #5b

2.0km below SquawCreek - 8/92 5.9 100 presentstudy BLM #4"

2.0 km below SquawCreek - 8/87 5.5 96 Corsi& Elle 1989 BLM#4'

2.0 km below SquawCreek - 7B4d nla UMMZ BLlll#4'

1.2km above SquawCreek - 8/92 6.6 94 presentstudy BLM #3f

7.Zkm above SquawCreek - 8/87 8.8 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 BL}/r#3f

0.8 km below BLM #l - 8/92 5.2 100 presentstudy BLM#29

0.8 km below BLM #1 - BLM 8/87 14.3 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 1+1c

2.4km below Forestboundary 8192 5.7 100 presentstudy _ BLM #lh

2.4 km below Forestboundary 8/87 10.9 100 Corsi& Elle 1989 - BLM #1"

Top end of transect is Big 7/97 nla 8l IJ presentstudy Creek

99 Table53. Continued.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00m' Rb BK BI Source 0.6 km above Forest boundary' 7196 nla 96 presentstudy

0.6 km above Forestboundary' 7/9s 8.3 100 presentstudy

0.6 km aboveForest boundaryi 8187 t2.1 100 Corsi& Elle 1989

250 m aboveCoal Creek 7196 nla 73 27 presentstudy

250 m above Coal Creek 7134i nla k UMMZ

At Hilts Creek 8197 18.8 63 presentstudy

At Hilts Creek (in beaver 7196 nla 401 60r presentstudy ponds)

0.5 km aboveHilts Creek (top 8195 2.4 75 25 presentstudy end of private land)

0.8 km aboveHilts Creek(in 6196 tl.3 28 72 presentstudy meadow)

0.8 km aboveHilts Creek (in 8195 12.1 3l 69 presentstudy meadow)

108 m aboveprevious site 6/96 8.2 36 64 presentstudy

2.2km aboveHilts Creek 7l9s none presentstudy u This sitereplaced the 1987site which could not be located.This siteis likely 150m to 300m above originalsite. o The 1992site was moved 2.4km upstreamsince beaver activity prohibitedresampling the 1987site. " Old BLM station#20 (BLM file data). d The locationof the 1934collection is describedas "Big Creek,trib of Little Lost River, ca 6 mi above mouth.,." However,this seemsto be presentday Wet Creekat this approximatelocation. " Sixteenrainbow trout 30-188 mm. t Old BLM station#l4(BLMfile data). c Old BLM station#4 (BLM file data). t' Bearrer activity prohibited resamplingthe 1987 site. The 1992 site was moved downstream approximately460 m. ' The 1995site is locatedapproximately 0.8 km belowthe 1987site. j The locationof the 1934site is describedas "Wet Creek,in Lost River Mountains,ca 1 mile above mouthinto Big Creek..,"This seemsto be in theapproximate location of the 1996site. k Four rainbowtrout22-196 mm, onerainbow trout x cutthroattrout hybrid 146mm. t An approximation.

100 Fluvial bull trout appearto be using lower Wet Creek as a migration corridor to Big Creek and possibly as an adult rearing area. Howeveq it is not clear if the bull trout in Wet Creek between Coal Creek and the diversion structureabove Hilts Creek arc part of a fluvial population. It is likely that fluvial bull trout historically migrated from lower Wet Creekand the mainstemof the Little Lost River into this reachto spawn.

The Wet Creek fishery appearsto be in a downward trend. Trout densitiesdecreased in all but one of theT transectsthat were sampledin 1987and resampledin 1992or 7995. The causeof this decline is not clear.

Twenty-one sculpin were collected from 2 sites in Wet Creek, preserved,and later identified as shorthead(Table 13).

In 1934,Carl Hubbs collectedfish from Wet Creek. He collected 16 rainbow trout and 12 shorthead sculpin from Wet Creekt approximately 10 km above the Little Lost River (UMMZ). At another site approximately 1.6 km aboveBig Creek,he collected4 rainbow trout, a cuffhroattrout x rainbow trout hybrid, and l0 shortheadsculpin. The lack of bull trout in thesesites suggeststhat this specieswas not abundantin these streamreaches at the time of this collection in 1934. However, Carl Hubbs recorded in his 1934 field notes (UMMZ) that:

Dr. Baker, druggist of Mackay and a long-time resident of the region, says that there are several "bottomlessholes" in the courseof Wet Creek, which until they were dynamited afew months ago were "full" of bull trout (Dolly Vardens).

There is a small unnamedtributary that entersWet Creekjust below the confluenceof Wet Creek and Coal Creek. This streamoriginates at springsapproximately 2.3 km above the confluence with Wet Creek. The entire stream is on Forest land. In 1997, the water temperaturenear the sourcesprings in the right and left hand forks was 13'C and 12'C respectively. The Forest ServiceR1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon this tributary in 1997 (Appendix F).

In 1995 and 1997,rainbow trout were oapturedin this stream (Table 54, Appendices A and B). In September1995, a34 m sectionof streamlocated approximately 100 m aboveWet Creek was electrofished. All of the fish capturedat this site were rainbow trout between 35 and 65 mrn in length. No other species were found. In July 1997, a91 m sectionlocated 0.6 km aboveWet Creek was electrofished. Rainbow trout were the only speciescollected. The length frequencydistribution of fish from this stream suggeststhat the stream may serve as a spawning and rearing areafor rainbow trout from Wet Creek.

I This collection site is describedas "Big Creek,trib of Little Lost River, ca 6 mi abovemouth..." However, this seemsto be present day Wet Creek'

101 Table 54. Summaryof electrofishingdata from an unnamedtributary to Wet Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/l00 m'z Rb BK BI Source

100 m aboveWet Creek 9/95 nla presentstudy

0.6 km above Wet Creek 7/97 nla 100 presentstudy " All fish capturedwere rainbow trout 35-65mm.

Williams Creek

Williams Creek,located in the centralportion ofthe Lemhi Mountain Range,is disjunctfrom the Little Lost fuver. The origin of Williams Creek was not clearly determined,but it appearsto be a spring 2.3 km above the Forest boundary. The streamflows a total of 3.9 km, where it is intermittently diverted for irrigation. Approximately 1.5 km below this diversion, the entire stream is diverted into a pipeline. Williams (1973) indicates that Williams Creek has probably been used for irrigation purposessince the 1880's. Aerial photographsand a field review suggestthat due to the diversionsthe streamdoes not regularly flow into the Little Lost River. This was confirmed by Don Phillips, a local landowner (personal communication). It appearsa large amount of sedimentwashistorically addedto Williams Creekfrom acanalcoming from Cedar Run Canyon. Stream temperatureswere monitored in Williams Creek in 1997 (Appendix E). The Forest Service R1/R4 Fish Habitat StandardInventory (Overton et al. 1997) was conductedon Williams Creek in 1997(Appendix F).

In 1995,bull trout and sculpin were found in Williams Creek (Table 55, AppendicesA and B). This bull trout population is unique in that it is the only bull trout population in the Little Lost River drainagethat is completely disjunct from other streams. Although bull trout ilppearto occupy the entire stream, densities are low in the lower reach. Only onebull trout was capturedina75 m sectionof streamthat was electrofished approximately1.6 km below the Forestboundary. In 1997,a 430 mm bull trout was caughtin Williams Creek. Although sculpin were present in the lower sampling site, they were not found in the upper site.

On June 7, lg97 , a small beaverpond nearthe Forestboundary was sampledby hook and line to help confirm the absenceof brook trout in this stream. Sevenbull trout measuringbetween 190 and 237 mm in length were captured. No other specieswere caught or observed.

t02 Table 55. Summaryof electrofishingdata from Williams Creek.

Species Composition(%)

Site Date Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Source

1.6km below Forest 6l9s nla 100 presentstudy boundary

Beaverpond at Forest 6/97 nla 100" presentstudy boundary

1.6 km aboveForest 6/95 10.4 100 presentstudy boundary u Hook and line sample.

Y Springs

Y Springsis locatedin the oenfal portionof the Lemhi MountainRange. Water from Y Springsflows approximately1.5 km, whereit sinksinto the valley floor. A field checkon June28, 1995indicated flows were limited, andavisual surveyof a sectionof the streamrevealed no fish (AppendixA).

UnnamedTributary (1 km southof Warm Creek)

This small,unnamed tributary is locatedin theLemhi Mountain Range approximately 1 km southof WarmCreek. Thestream is disjunctfrom theLittle Lost River. A 50 m sectionof the streamnear the Forest boundarywas visually surveyedin June1995 (Appendix A). Habitatis limited,and no fish were found.

Other unnamed drainages

Basedon field reviews,personal observations, reviews of maps,andlor reviews of aerial photographs, unnameddrainages in the Little Lost River drainage,other than those previously discussed,have no fishery habitator it is so limited that fish are likely not present.

Part 4: Lakes and Reservoirs

Introduction

Thereare lT lakes,1 reservoir, 3 dysfunctionalreservoirs, and several private ponds in theLittle Lost River drainage(LRRD file data,personal observation). All of the lakesin the drainageare small (lessthan

103 6 hectares)mountain lakes. This sectionpresents an overview ofthe lakesand reservoirs; small private ponds are not included. Subdrainagescontaining lakesare listed in alphabeticalorder. Individual lakes are listed in the ascending order of occurrencewithin a subdrainage.

Big Creek

Lower Big Creek Lake (beaver pond)

Lower Big Creek Lake is actually alarge semi-permanentbeaver pond locatedon the main channel of Big Creek 6.1 l

The Forest Servicecollected angling datafrom 21 anglersvisiting the pond in 1990(Gamett 1990a). Theseanglers had fished atotalof 80 hours and caught 155 fish (1.94 fish/hour). Ninety-five percent of the fish caught were brook trout, and the remaining 5%owerc rainbow trout. Harvest rates for brook trout and rainbow trout were 42Yo and}Yo,rcspectively. Fish averagedapproximately 230 mm in length.

Big Creek Lake#2

Big Creek Lake#2,located in the headof Big Creek, is approximately1.0 hectaresin size. Although the lake has been stookedwith both rainbow trout and cutthroat trout since 1959,it is not known if the lake sustainsfish. Although stocking recordsindicate fish were introducedinto the lake in 1984and 1988,no fish were found in the lake in 1990 (Gamett 1990b). However, it is possiblethe lake was not identified correctly in 1984and 1988 and not actuallyplanted. Therefore,the lake will continueto be stockedwith 500 rainbow trout every 3 years until determination can be made as to whether or not it will support fish. Outmigration of fish from the lake into Big Creek is unlikely (personalobservation). Accessto the lake is closedto motorized vehicles.

Dry Creek

Dry Creek Reservoir

Dry Creek Reservoir was located on Dry Creek immediately below the confluence of Long Lost Creek and Dry Creek. Constructionon the dam beganin 1909 and was completed in 1925. The dam consistedof a concreteexterior and earth filled interior. Surveyrecords indicate the spillway was24.4 m in elevation,the reservoir surface area was 39.4 hectares,and the reservoir volume was 2.95 million m' lJohn E' Hayes Collection, Special Collections and Archives, University of Idaho Library). In the mid 1930's, the dam was dynamited ina water war. In June 1956,high water resultedin the failure of the dam and the ensuing flood

104 killed 2 peoplebelow the reservoir. A remnantof the dam remainstoday. Apparently, bull trout were present in the reservoir in the 1920's. JesseStrope, who moved to the Little Lost River valley in 1910,indicated that in the 1920'she caught only "dolly varden" in the reservoir and in Dry Creek above the reservoir (personal communication). Stocking recordsindicate the reservoirwas stockedwith rainbow trout between 1951 and 1953. However, rainbow trout were caught in the reservoir as early as 1942 (Mounty Dick, area resident, personalcommunication) indicating this specieshad been introducedinto the reservoir andlor Dry Creek by at least 1942. Rainbow trout up to 460 mm were caughtin the reservoir (Mounty Dick, arearesident personal communication).

Copper Lake

Copper Lake, located on the ridge betweenLong Lost Creek and Dry Creek, is approximately 1.0 hectaresin size. In 1990,no fish were observedin the lake despiteintroductions in both 1984 and 1988 (Gamett 1990b). Fish were again introduced in the fall of 1990, and small fish were observed in the lake approximately 3 weeks later (Gamett 1990b). However, no fish were found in the lake in 1993 (personal observation). It is likely the lake's shallow depth doesnot allow it to overwinter fish. Therefore,stocking is being discontinued. It is unlikely that any fish introduced into the lake were able to move into Dry Creek (personal observation). Access to the lake is open to motorized vehicles.

Dry CreekPond

Dry Creek Pond, locatedin the bottom of Dry Creek, is approximately0.5 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked,and no fish were observedin the lake in 1988 or 1995 (personal observation). Recreation atthe lake appearslimited and is likely incidental to recreation associatedwith upper Dry Creek and Swauger lakes.

Dry Creek Lake #1

Dry Creek Lake #l,located on the ridge betweenLong Lost Creek and Dry Creek, is approximately 1.0 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked,and the lake appearsto receive very little use. No fish were observedin the lake in 1990(Gamett 1990b)'

Swauger Lake #1

SwaugerLake#l,located on the ridge betweenDry Creek and Long Lost Creek immediately below SwaugerLake#2,is approximately0.25 hectaresin size. The lake's outlet sinks into the talus slope nearthe mouth of the lake. In the fall of 7976, an attemptwas madeto sealthis sink and increasethe size of the lake (LRRD file data). This involved removing rock from aroundthe seepagearea, applying alayer of bentonite, then refilling the hole with fine soil. Although the lake increasedin size and depthduring runoffthe following spring, it was within 0.3 m of the original level by July'

t0s Following completion of the project in 1976, cutthroat trout were introduced into the lake. This specieshasbeenstockedregularlysincethattime.Asingleintroductionofrainbowtroutwasmadein 1982. Although the lake occasionallywinterkills, it generallysupports fish. In 1995,a 560 mm cutthroattrout was caught in the lake by an angler. There doesnot appearto be any natural recruitment into the lake (personal observation). The curent managementplan calls for the lake to be stockedevery 3 yearswith 500 cutthroat trout. Outmigration of fish into Dry Creek is unlikely (personal observation). Recreationaluse at the lake appearsmostly incidental to use at SwaugerLake #2. Access to the lake is open to motorized vehicles.

Swauger Lake#2

SwaugerLake#Z,located on the ridge betweenLong Lost Creek and Dry Creek immediately above Swauger Lake #1, is approximately 1.0 hectaresin size. Recreationaluse at the lake is relatively high. Cutthroattrout, which were first introducedin 1962,have beenthe only speciesintroduced into the lake. The length frequency offish observed and caught in the lake in 1990 and 1993 suggeststhere is no natural recruitment into the lake. In 1994,theForest Servicecollected creel datafrom 39 visitors to the lake (LRRD file data). Theseanglers had fished 140hours and caught23fish (0.2 fislr/hour). Cutthroattrout were the only speciescaught, 78% of which were harvested. Thirteen anglersrated their angling experience. Thirty-one percentrated it as poor, 38Yoas fair, l5Yo as good, and 15Yoas excellent. Fourteen anglers indicated their angling methods. Twenty-nine percentfished with bait; 140/owith lure; l4Yowith bait and lure; 7Yowithbait and fly; 7o/owllhlure and fly; and zgyowithbait, fly, and lure. To improve catch rates, the stocking rate was increasedin 1995 from 2,000 fish every 3 years to 3,000 fish every 3 years. The lake is open to accessby motorized vehicles.

Trout growth in the lake is relatively rapid. Becausethe lake has traditionally been stocked with Yellowstone cutthroattrout, a single introduction of westslopecutthroattrout in 1988provided an opportunity to monitor growth rateswithin the lake. The westslopecutthroat trout were young-of-the-yearat the time of their introduction in 1988. In 1990,thelake was sampledby hook and line (Gamett 1990b). The average length of the westslopecutthroat trout captured@aQ was 34 cm. The rapid growth rate is likely due to the high density of macroinvertebratesin the lake (personal observation).

Swauger Lake#3

SwaugerLake #3,locatedon the ridge betweenLong Lost Creekand Dry Creek,is approximately0.25 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked,and the lake likely receives little use.

Dry Creek Lakell2

Dry Creek Lake #2,located on the ridge betweenLong Lost Creek and Dry Creek, is approximately 0.5 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked. The lake likely receives little use due to difficult access.

t06 Dry Creek Lake #3

Dry Creek Lake#3 is looatedon the ridge betweenDry Creek and West Fork Bumt Creek (Pahsimeroi River drainage). An aerial photographtaken July 1, 1961 indicatesthe lake was about 0.25 hectaresin size. However, an aerialphotographtaken August 4,1979 indicatesthe lake was nearly dry. This suggeststhis lake is intermittent. There is no record of the lake being stocked. The lake likely receiveslittle use due to difficult access.

Dry Creek Lake#A

Dry Creek Lake#4,located on the ridge betweenUpper CedarCreek (Big Lost River drainage) and Dry Creek, is approximately 0.25 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked. The lake likelv receiveslittle use due to difficult access.

llorse Lake Creek llorse Lake

Horse Lake, located in Horse Lake Creek in the Sawmill Canyon drainage, is approximately 0.5 hectaresin size. There is no record of the lake being stocked,and the lake likely receivesvery little use. No fish were observedin the lake in June 1997 (personalobservation). However, spottedfrogs Rana luteiventris were abundant.

Long Lost Creek

Shadow Lake #L (lower)

Shadow Lake#l,located in Hell Canyon, is approximately 0.5 hectaresin size. Although the lake was stocked with cutthroat trout in 1984 and 1990, no fish were caught or observed in the lake in 1993 (personalobservation). Due to the lake's apparentinability to supportfish, it will no longer be stocked. Outmigration of any fish introduced into the lake into Hell Canyon Creek or Long Lost Creek is unlikely (personalobservation).

Shadow Lake#2 (upper)

Shadow Lake#2,located in Hell Canyon immediately above ShadowLake#1, is approximately 1.5 hectaresin size. Rainbow trout, stockedinto the lake in 1964,werethe first fish introducedinto the lake. The firstintroductionofcutthroattroutwasmadein1975. Between 1982 andl994,rainbowtroutwereintroduced

t07 5 times. However, in 1993no fish were observedin the lake (personalobservation). During a volunteer trailhead survey conductedby the Forest Servicein 1994,two anglersreported fishing one hour in "Shadow Lake" (LRRD file data). This was likely ShadowLake #2. They did not catch any fish. The one angler that respondedratedthe angling experienceas poor. Due to the lake's apparentinability to support fish, it will no longer be stocked.

Long Lost Creek Lake

Long Lost Creek Lake, locatedon the ridge betweenLong Lost Creek and Upper CedarCreek (Big Lost River d rainage),is approximately0.25 hectaresin size. There is no recordof the lake being stocked. The lake likelv receiveslittle use due to difficult access.

Mill Creek

Mill Creek Lake

Mill Creek Lake is locatedin Mill Creek in the Sawmill Canyon drainage. The lake was formed by a landslidethat blocked Mill Creek. At maximum level the lake is 5 to 6 hectaresin size. However, seepage out of the lake through the landslidereduces the surface areaby late summer. Historically, the lake was about one hectarein size by late summer(LRRD file data). In the early 1970's,a liner was installed near the seep to maintain higher water levels year round (LRRD file data). Although seepagecontinues to lower lake levels by late summer, it appearsthe lake maintainsa higher minimum level than before the project was completed (personal observation).

In l94l and l969,rainbow trout were introducedinto the lake. Cutthroattrout have been stockedin recentyears , anda single introduction of grayling was made in 1995. The current managementplan calls for the introduction ofcutthroattrout every 3 years.

ln 7994,the Forest Servicecollected creel data from 25 visitors to the lake (LRRD file data). These anglershad fished 53.5 hours and caught40 fish (0.8 fish/hour). Cutthroat trout comprisedT5o/oof the fish caught; rainbow trout comprised the remainder. Twenty-five percent of the fish caught were harvested. Ten ungi"tr rated their angling experience.Thirty percentrated it as poor, 20Yoas fait, 40Yoas good, and I|Yo as excellent. Ten anglersindicated their angling methods. Twenty percentfished with bait; 5|o/owtthlwe10%o with bait and lure; and2\Yo with lure and fly. In 1997,a243 mm grayling caught from the lake was turned into the Lost River Ranger District (personal observation).

The length frequencydistribution of fish caughtin the lake andthe presenceof rainbow trout in reoent years indicatesthere is some natural recruitment into the lake. Outmigration of fish from the lake into lower ivtill Creet is not possibledue to the lack of an overlandconnection between the lake and the stream. No fish were observedin an ocular surveyof approximately100 m of Mill Creekimmediately above the lake in August 1995. However, it is likely that fish from the lake use it for spawning (personalobservation). The grayling introduced in 1995may also spawn in the streamand establisha reproducing population.

108 Summit Creek

Summit Creek Reservoir

Summit Creek Reservoir, located near the Little Lost River and Pahsimeroi River divide, is approximately 40 hectaresin size at maximum capacity. There is no record of fish being introducedinto the reservoir, and it is not known if it contains a fish population. The reservoir is utilized during the spring, summer, and fall by a variety of waterfowl speciesand probably servesas a nesting area.

Wet Creek

Nolan Lake

Nolan Lake, located in the head of Wet Creek, is approxim ately0.25 hectaresin size. A single introduction of goldentrout was made into the lake in 1986. However, these fish likely did not survive due tothelake'ssmall,shallownature.InOctoberlgg},thelakewasdry(personalobservation)andisnolonger stocked. Outmigration of fish into Wet Creek is not possible (personal observation),

109 RECOMMENDATIONS

Habitat Management

1. Improve riparianhabitat and reduce sediment levels in the Wet Creek subdrainage. Reachesof emphasisare Wet Creek aboveBasin Creek,Coal Creek,the unnamedtributary to Wet Creek below Coal Creek, Basin Creek, and SquawCreek. This could be accomplishedthrough riparian pastures to better regulate grazing.

2. Relocatethe Mill Creektrailhead to reduceimpacts to the streamassociated with this development.

3. Relocate the Timber Creek trail below the confluence of Slide Creek and Timber Creek. This would involve moving the trail approximately 50 to 100 m downstream of the present location. It would result in the trail crossing only Timber Creek insteadof Timber Creek and Slide Creek.

4. Assess potential culvert bariers in Moonshine Creek and Redrock Creek.

5. If there are willing sellers,acquire land or easementson private land along perennial streamreaches to prevent housing development.Emphasis should be on Wet Creek,Big Creek, Summit Creek, Badger Creek, Squaw Creek (Wet Creek drainage),and the Little Lost River.

6. Evaluateremoving natural "semi-permanent"barriers that may be blocking the migration of fish into severalstream reaches. Theseinclude bariers on Badger Creek 3.0 km abovethe Little Lost River, Bunting Creek 300 m aboveBadger Creek, Quigley Creekapproximately 400 m abovethe Little Lost River, and Camp Creek immediately above Timber Creek.

- Evaluate reconnecting Williams Creek to the Little Lost River.

8. Evaluateirrigation diversionbarrier andconnectivity between Badger Creek andthe Little LostRiver.

9. Evaluatethe potential for Horse Creek to supportbull trout. If it is suitable,evaluate the possibility of reconnecting the streamto the Little Lost River'

10. Relocatethe Williams CreekRoad (# 405) abovethe streamcrossing approximately 1 km abovethe Forest boundary out of the ripaian atea.

11. Work with cooperatinglandowners to improve riparianhabitat on private land. Emphasisshould be on the Liffle Lost River between Badger Creek and the private property line above Summit Creek. t2. Reduce summer streamtemperafures wherever possible. Emphasis should be on the Little Lost River and tributaries above Summit Creek and the Wet Creek drainage.

13. Reduce sediment levels and streamtemperatures in Bear Creek.

14. Reducesediment levels in Deer Creekand RedrockCreek'

15. Reduce sediment levels and improve riparian conditions on Meadow Creek.

ll0 Fish Management

1 I. Continue to monitor the Little Lost River at Iron Creek and Wet Creek at the Forest Boundary for brook trout expansion. These sites are above the upper limit of brook trout distribution in these 2 subdrainagesand are being monitored to detect an expansionof brook trout into key bull trout streams.

2. Control brook trout expansionwherever possible.

3. Eradicatebrook ffout in Big Creek, SquawCreek (Sawmill Canyon),Mill Creek, and the Little Lost River above Summit Creek.

4. Confirm the existence of brown trout. If foundowork to eradicatethis speciesbefore it becomes establishedelsewhere in the drainage.

5. Assessthe lossof bull trout through irrigation diversionson Williams Creek,Wet Creek,and Sawmill Creek near Timber Creek.

6. Assessthe feasibility of eradicating brook trout in Meadow Creek and Dry Creek and introducing bull trout. n Determine the degreeof illegal and unintentional bull trout harvest.

Education

t Continue efforts to educatethe public about the no harvest bull trout rule and identification of bull trout through annual placementof identification postersthroughout the Little Lost River drainage.

2. Maintain the large bull trout identification signs at the Timber Creek Campground and Sawmill Canyon at the Forest Boundary.

3. Expand efforts to educatethe public aboutthe no harvestbull trout rule and identification of bull trout by placement of large bull trout identification signs at the PassCreek/Wet Creek summit, at the Summit Creek summit, and north of Howe.

4. Expand efforts to educatethe public aboutthe no harvestbull trout rule and identification of bull trout through distribution of bull trout pamphletsthrough Forest Service,Fish and Game, and Bureau of Land Managementpersonnel and offices; local businesses;and tourism centers.

5. Begin efforts through the news media and other meansto inform the public about fish ecology, fish management,and fish managementissues in the Little Lost River drainage. Emphasisshould be on bull trout and bull trout recovery efforts being made by various agencies.

6. Increase enforcement activities relating to the no bull trout harvest rule. Efforts should be concentratedalong the Little Lost River and tributaries above Summit Creek.

111 LITERATURE CITED

Anderson,M.W. 1988. The Little Lost River flood control plan: A casehistory. Journalof Soil and Water Conservation 43 :39| -393.

Andrews, D.A. 1972. An ecological study of the Lost Streamsof Idaho with emphasison the Little Lost River. Master's Thesis. Idaho StateUniversity, Pocatello, Idaho.

Ball, K. and P. Jeppson. 1978. Regional FisheriesManagement Investigations. Region 6 Streams Investigations. Job PerformanceReport. Project F-71-R-2,Job No. VI-c. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Behnke,R.J. 1992. Native Trout of WesternNorth America. Monograph6. American FisheriesSociety, Bethesda,Maryland.

Bond, J.G. 1978. Geologic map of Idaho. Idaho Departmentof Lands,Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Bruhn, D. 1990. Changes in a semiarid riparian stream ecosystemafter fencing to minimize grazing. Master's Thesis. Universify of Idaho,Moscow, Idaho.

Chisholm, I.M, and W.A. Hubert. 1986. Influence of streamgradient on standingstock of brook trout in the Snowy Range,Wyoming. Northwest Science60 (2):137-139.

Corsi, C. 1989. RegionalFisheries Management Investigations. Region 6 Rivers and StreamsInvestigations - Big Lost River Survey. Job PerformanceReport. Project F-71-R-ll, Job No. 6 (IF)-c2. Idaho Deparfmentof Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Corsi,C., B. Spateholts,V. Moore, and T. Williams. 1986. RegionalFishery Management Investigations. Region 6 StreamInvestigations. Job PerformanceReport. Project F-73-R-8, Job No. VI-c. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Corsi, C. and S. Elle. 1989. Regional FisheriesManagement Investigations. Region 6 Rivers and Streams Investigations - Big Lost and Little Lost Rivers, and Birch and Medicine Lodge Creek Survey. Job Performance Report. Project F-71-F.-12,Job No. 6 (IF)-c'z. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise.Idaho.

Corsi, C. and S. Elle. 1986, RegionalFisheries Management Investigations. Region 6 Streamsand Rivers Investigations. Job PerformanceReport. ProjectF-71-R-10,Job M-c. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game, Boise,Idaho.

Courtenay,W.R., C.R. Robins, R.M. Bailey, andJ.E.Deacon. 1987. Recordsof exotic fishes from Idaho and Wyoming. Great Basin Naturalist47:523-526'

Devoe, G. (no date). Sawmill Creek Project. Case Studiesand Catalog of WatershedProjects in Western Provinces and States. Report 22. Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources. University of California.

l12 Elle, S. 1995. Bull Trout Investigations. Annual PerformanceReport. Grant F-73-R-17. Idaho Department of Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Elle, S., C. Corsi, and D. Aslett. 1987. RegionalFisheries Management Investigations. Region 6 Rivers and Streams Investigations. Job PerformanceReport. Project F-71-R-ll, Job No. 6(IF)-c2. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho.

Fausch,K.D. 1989, Do gradientand temperature affect disffibutionsof, and interactionsbetween, brook chan (Salvelinusfontinalis) and other residentsalmonids in streams?Physiological Ecology Japan1:303- 322.

Fraley,J.W. and B.B, Shepard. 1989. Life history, ecology,and populationstatus of migratory bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) in the Flathead Lake and river system, Montana. Northwest Science 63(4):133-r43.

FWPWPA (FederalWriters' Projectsof the Works ProgressAdministration). 1937. Idaho, a guide in word and picture. The Caxton Printers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho.

Gamett,B.L. 1990a. Big and Little Lost rivers mountain lake anglerssurvey - results. Unpublished report. Lost River Ranger District Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Gamett,B.L. 1990b. Little Lost River mountain lake catalog. Unpublishedopen report. Lost River Ranger District Challis National Forest, Mackay, Idaho.

Hubbs, C. and R. Miller. 1948. The zoological evidence: correlation between fish distribution and hydrographic history in the desertbasins of the western United States. Bulletin University of Utah 38(20):18-126.

IdahoDepartmentofFishandGame. (nodate). FisheriesManagementPlan1991-1995. IdahoDepartment of Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Jeppson,P. and K. Ball. 1978. Regional FisheriesManagement Investigations. Region 6 Streams Investigations. Job PerformanceReport. Project F-71-R-3, Job VI-c. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,Boise, Idaho.

Keller, C.R. and K.P. Burnham. 1982. Riparian fencing, grazing,and trout habitat preferenceon Summit Creek, Idaho. North American Journalof FisheriesManagement2:53-59'

Keller, C., L. Anderson,and P. Tappel. 1979. Fish habitatchanges in Summit Creek,Idaho after fencing. Pages46-52 inO.B. Cope,editor. Proceedingsofthe forum - grazingandriparian/streamecosystems. Trout Unlimited.

Leary,R.F., F.W. Allendorf, and S.H. Forbes. 1993. Conservationgenetics of bull trout in the Columbia and Klamath River drainages. ConservationBiology 7(4): 856-865.

Lee, D.C., J.R. Sedell,B.E. Rieman,R.F. Thurow, and J.E. Williams. 7997. Broadscaleassessment of aquatic speciesand habitats. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report, PNW-405 (volume 3):1057-r496.

113 Locke, S.B. 1929. Whitefish, grayling, trout, and salmonof the Intermountain region. Bureau of Fisheries DocumentNo. 1062. Departmentof CommerceBureau of Fisheries,Washington, D.C. Mangum, Fred A. 1983. Aquatic ecosysteminventory macroinvertebrateanalysis. Annual progressreport Challis National Forest 1983. USDA-Forest Service,Intermountain Region Aquatic Ecosystem Analysis Laboratory, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah.

May, B. 1996. Yellowstone cuffhroat trout Oncorhynchusclarki bouvieri. Pages 11-34 in D.A. Duff, technical editor. Conservation assessmentfor inland cutthroat trout statusand distribution. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.

McPhail, J.D. and C.B. Muray. 1979. The early life-history and ecology of Dolly Varden (Salvelinusmalma) in the upperArrow Lakes. Departmentof Zoology andInstitute ofAnimal ResourceEcology, U.B.C., 1979.

Mullan, J.W., K. Williams, G. Rhodus,T. Hillman, and J. Mclntyre. 1992. Productionand habitat of salmonidsin mid-Columbia River tributary streams.Monogram 1. U.S. Departmentof the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service,Washington D.C.

Mullen, W.J, 1970. Lost river wilderness. StudioPress, Pocatello, Idaho.

Mundorff,M.J.,H.C.Broom,andC.Kilburn. 1963.ReconnaissanceofthehydrologyoftheLittleLostRiver Basin, Idaho. USGS Water-Supply Paper, 1539-Q. United StatesGovernment Printing Office, Washinglon,D.C.

Oberg, P.M. 1970. Betweenthese mountains, history of Birch Creek Valley, Idaho. Exposition PressInc., Jericho, New York.

Overton, C.K., S.P.Wollrab,B.C. Roberts,andM.A. Radko. 1997. R1/R4 (Northem/IntermountainRegions) Fish andFish Habitat StandardInventory ProceduresHandbook. USDA ForestService Intermountain ResearchStation. GeneralTechnical Report INT-138' pierce,K.L. and W.E. Scott. 1982. Pleistoceneepisodes of alluvial-graveldeposition, southeastern Idaho. 1n B. Bonnichsenand R.M. Breckenridge,editors, CenozoicGeology of Idaho. Idaho Bureauof Mines and Geology Bulletin 26:685-702.

Platts,W.S.,W.F.Megahan,andG.W.Minshall.1983. Methodsforevaluatingstream,riparian,andbiotic conditions. USDA-Forest Service,Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. General 'Iechnical Report INT-138.

Rember, W.C. and E.H. Bennet. 1979a. Geologic map of the Dubois quadrangle,Idaho. Idaho Department of Lands,Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Rember. W.C. and E.H. Bennet. 1979b. Geologic map of the Idaho Falls quadrangle,Idaho. Idaho Department of Lands, Bureau of Mines and Geology.

Rieman.8.E., D.C. Lee, and R.F. Thurow. 1997. Distribution, status,and likely future trendsof bull trout within the Columbia River and Klamath River basins. North American Journal of Fisheries Managementl7 :l ll1-l 125.

r14 Rieman,B.E. and J.D. Mclntyre. 1993. Demographicand habitat requirements for conservationof bull ffout. USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain ResearchStation. General Technical Report INT-302.

Rieman,B.E. and K.A. Apperson. 1989. Statusand analysisof salmonidfisheries. Westslopecutthroattrout synopsisand analysisof fishery information. Project F-73-R-l l, SubprojectNo.II, JobNo. l. Idaho Departmentof Fish and Game,Boise,Idaho.

Scott,W.B.andE.J.Crossman.1973. FreshwaterfishesofCanada.Bulletin 184. FisheriesResearchBoard of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.

SCS(Soil ConservationService) and BLM (Bureauof Land Management). 1985. Little Lost River flood control measureplan and environmental statement. U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil ConservationService, Boise, Idaho.

Simpson,J.C. and R.L. Wallace. 1982. Fishesof Idaho. The University of Idaho Press,Moscow, Idaho.

Sonnenkalb,O. 1925. Reminiscenoesof Oscar Sonnenkalb,Idaho surveyor and pioneer. Idaho State University Press,Pocatello, Idaho.

Stone,M.A.J., L.J. Mann, andL.C. Kjelstrom. 1993. Statisticalsummaries of streamflowdata for selected gaging stationson and nearthe Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, Idaho, through September 1990. U.S. GeologicalSurvey in cooperationwith U.S. Departmentof Energy. Water-Resources Investigations Report 92-41 9 6.

Swanberg,T.R. 1997. Movements of and habitatuse by fluvial bull trout in the Blackfoot River, Montana. Transactionsof the American FisheriesSociety 126:735-746.

Thurow, R.F. 1994. Underwater methods for study of salmonids in the Intermountain west, General Technical Report INT-GTR-307. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.

Thurow, R.F., D.C. Lee, and B.E. Rieman. 1997. Distribution and statusof sevennative salmonids in the interior Columbia River Basin and portions of the Klamath River and Great Basins. North American Journal of FisheriesManagement l7 :1094- | 11 0.

Thurow, R.F., C.E. Corsi, and V.K. Moore. 1988. Status,ecology, and managementof Yellowstone cutthroat trout in the Upper SnakeRiver drainage,Idaho. American FisheriesSociety Symposium 4:25-36.

Van Eimeren, P. i996. Westslope cutthroat troal Oncorhynchusclarhi lewisi. Pages 1-I0 in D. A' Duff, technical editor. Conservation assessmentfor inland cutthroat trout statusand distribution. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,Intermountain Region, Ogden, Utah.

Williams,R.H,H.R.Williams,A.W.Saxton,andC.C.Williams.1973. AaronHenryWilliams.Unpublished family history available at Lost Rivers Community Libtary, Arco, Idaho.

Wydoski, R.S. and R.R. Whitney. 1979. Inland fishesof Washington. University of WashingtonPress, Seattle, Washington.

115 APPENDICES APPENDIX A Appendix ^d Summary 615ampling efforts and results in the Little Lost River drainage between 1992 and (Calculations are for fish 270mm except for BLM sitessamnled between 1992 and 1994which are for fish >100 mm. Sampling Watcr Total Captureil ^ Species (%) Sculpin Stream Location Methoil Date >70mm Fish/100 tf Rb Bk Bl Present Comments Aspen Creek 1.5km aboveLittle visual lll95 dueto limited Lost River habitat afish survey was not conducted

BadgerCreek #1 3.2km abovetheLittle I pass 4 (4) I,ost River

BadgerCreek #2 1.4km abovethe I pass 12(14) 92 Forestboundary

BadgerCreek #3 0.3 km aboveBunting 2 pass 1.8 7 16(19) (16-18) 100 no CanyonCreek 2 pass 1.4 7 17(18) (17-18) 94 no

BameyCreek I kmbelowBamey visual 0.5 20 noneobserved llo Hot Springs

Creek ts Basin #1 0.4 km aboveWet visual 0.752 noneobserved F Creek @ BasinCreek #2 300 m belowPine 1 pass 7/91 1.1 2Q) Creek

BasinCreek #3 6.4 km aboveWet visual 7/95 502 0.52 noneobserved habitat limited Creek

Bear Creek#l 0.6 km aboveSawmill 53 20 (2o) 100 CanyonRoad

Bear Creek#2 0.8km above#1 I pass 302 12 noneobserved l5-25o/ogadient limitedhabitat

Bell Mt. Creek#l in springat diversion I pass 6/95 LO2 22 noneobserved

BellMt. Creek#2 3 separatelocatiors 0.4 1 passi 6/95 502 1.52 noneobserved ttris sectionwas km abovediversion visual htermittent in 1997

Big Creek#1 0.8 km aboveWet I pass 68 2.2 7 (r4) 86 t4 Creek 2 pass 95 2.7 t6 81 19

Big Creek#la 20 m aboveForest I pass 54 2.4 30 (36) Jt 0) Appmdir A (cmtimed), Sm|rt of r.npltrg efiortr sn|l rrJtltr in the Little Lort Riv€r drxtu gebet|y€tn 1992 rd 1997. (Cdcatett@rer€ for Iirh :70Dm eraDr for BLM sit€r lrmDled bctn€.n 1992ad 1994rhtcl rrc for firh >100D|D.) Sampling Water TotalCaptured Population Spedes(%o) Sculpin Location Methoil Date Leneth(m) Wftlth(rn) Tempog >70mm(allfish)t Estimate(Ranee) Fish/lfi) m2 Rb Bk Bl Present Comments Big Creek#2 attrailhead 2 pass 9/94 88 2.2 5a @/a) 65(56-7s) 33.6 52 48

Big Creek#3 immediately below 2 pass 8/94 9l 4.0 123 (n/a) 154(138-170) 42.3 60382 I fish appeared beaverpond to be a Bk-Bl hybrid

Big Creek#4 above beaver pond 2pass 9/94 r2s (nla) 160(r42-t7e) t37 l8 77 all bulltrout appearedtobe Bk-Bl hybrids

Big SpringsCreek 0.8 km above Buck 2 pass ll7 98 (r/a) 125(109-141) 20.9 80 20 yes (BLM) andBirdRd. (e/e7)

Birch Basin at Forest boundary visual dueto limited habitat a fish survey was not conducted

F H Black Creek diversionpool visual 7/97 7 none observed no habitat limited

Bull Creek#l 0,8kmabove Litrle I pass 8/95 702 12 none observed no Irst

Bull Creek#2 1.2km aboveLittle I pass 9/95 302 12 none observed Irst

Bunting Canyon#l 175m aboveBadger I pass 7/97 43 1.6 6(e) Creek

Bunting Canyon#2 0.8 km aboveBadger I pass 6t95 602 1.52 none observed included2 Creek separatesections

Bunting Canyon#3 2 km aboveBadger 1 pass 6t95 502 12 none observed Creek

Camp#l(Sawmill 100meters above I pass 9/95 25 t.2 5 (5) 100 Canyon) Timber Creek

Camp#2(Sawmill l 6 km aboveTimber I pass 9/9s 102 f none observed habitat limited Canyon) Creek visual

Cedarville(Cabin at endofroad visual 1t/95 502 1.52 none observed Fork') ApDtdltr A (c@timre!D.Sulnhrry of $uplitrg.trort! and Elult, in the Little Lolt River dniDrge betn€€rtrl9y2 e\d1!rr1. (C4l"ul.iim. rle for firh:70nm €f,ccptfor BLM .iter lrnDl€d b€tti€en1992 &rd 1994whicl rre for f|!L >100DD.) wdgr T.arl CrFra Popddo sFds (%) sdFr g'm Inotl@ ld.rlod Ih. lagrlh\ uflrltup) I@p"C >70|nrdr6h)' Etu oolcr ILtn(I)d Rb n Al PE at Cm.fr Ced&Ru#l ldrdsFilgidw lisd 6195 JV l.V -- M. obsv.d

CedarRun#2 at divenion 1 pass 6195 502 1.52 none observed

Cedar Run #3 in canal 0.8 km above I pass/ 6195 502 12 none observed habitatlimited Williams Creek visual

Chicken Creek private/BlMproperty lpasV 9/95 20 .5 none observed habitatlimited line visual

Coal Creek below Gate 2 pass 7/95 52 t.6 10 e (e) e(e) tt.2 100

CorralCanyon Creek 20 m above Horsethief visual 7/97 30 t5 none observed sbearn appeaxed (Arco Pass) Canyon Creek htemittent

Corral Creek (Wet 500 mabove Wet 6/97 502 0.52 none observed habitat limited Creek) Creek Road

H N) Cub Canyon Creek onprivate land visual 9/9s dueto limited habitat a survey was not condusted

Deep Creek #l diversion pool visual 6/95 152 152 none observed

Deep Creek #2 immediately above I pass 6/95 502 1.52 none observed diversion pool and 200 meters above diversion pool

Deer Creek (BLM) #l 2.lkm above Little 3 pass 2l (n/a) 22(2r-24) 100 probably an Lost River underestimate dueto difrcult sampling

Deer Creek(BLM) #2 1.6km belowForest 3 pass 8/92 t52 1.4 43 (n/a) 44 (43-4',t) 20.7 100 boundarv

Deer Creek (FS) at Forestboundary 3 pass 6/95 )) 1.6 16 38 (38) 38 (38) 42.5 100 yes

DeerCreek N.F. O.2l,n aboveS.F. 4 pass 6/95 30 1.7 14 176(178) 180(176-185)3 357.4 t00 no Ap!.Ddit A (cmriu€d). SurDmrryof ,rmpling efiorts md rerultr in the Little Lrt River drd!.g. betwe$ 1992rd 1997, (Cdculdims arc for lisl:70nm exceDtfor BLM aiterarmDl€d betrr€en 1992 rnd 1994rhich are for 6S >1m md.) Sampling Water Total Captureil Population Species(%) Sculpin Location Method Date Length(m) Wirlth(m) TempoC >?0mrn(allffsh)1 Esttunate(Ranse) Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Present Comments Deer Creek, S.F. 0.5 km aboveNorth 2 pass 6/95 t.2 t6 2sQe) 25 Q5:26) 37.5 100 Fork

Dry Creek #l 50 metersabove I pass 5.3 3 (4) o/ JJ rainbowtrout diversionpool had a shong cutthroat troul influence

Dry Creek#2 0.8 km abovediversion 2 pass 8/9s 147 4.7 2r (2r) 28 (2t:37) 4.1 100 no

Dry Creek#3 150meters above 2 pass 8/95 t46 4.3 52 (5'.7) s6 (s2-60) 8.9 100 no Forestboundary

Dry Creek#4 pooladjacentto #3 1 pass 8/9s 22 4.5 50 (67) t00 no

Dry Creek#5 springadjacent to Dry 1 pass 8/95 32 1.52 - - (10') 100 no Creekl.2kmabove

H Forestboundary N) ts Dry Creek#6 0.4 km abovefalls 1 pass 8/9s 602 42 none observed no

Dry Creek#7 0.8 km abovefalls I pass 8/95 902 22 none observed no

Dry Creek#8 beaverponds adjacerf visual 8/9s none observed lto to Dry Creek3.2 km abovefalls

Dry Creek#9 4.8 km abovefalls visual 8/95 302 12 none observed

Fallert SpringsCreek aboveFallert Springs I pass 9/93 139 4.8 14 (nla) 100 I hatchery (BLM) bridge rainbowtrout 353mm

FireboxCreek 400 m aboveLittle 2 pass 7/97 100 2.9 36 (41) 48 (36-72) t6.6 100 Lost River

GarfreldCreek 200 metersabove I pass 6/95 752 .)- none observed habitatlimited Forestboundary

Hawley Creek immediately above I pass 9/95 47 I (l) 100 habitatlimited Iron CreekRoad ApDtDtlir A (.onttnued). Sum{rrt drtDpling €fiortr rnd ltn tr in the Lifflc Irlt River drain.gebetw€rd19,2 snd1r97. (CrlcuhlioN |re for lilh:70mm €xc4ptfor BLM .it€3 lrnDleil betwefl 1992rtrd 1994wlich dr for fiih >100nD.) sdlltlg wdq lond c.phFd PoFh{6 sF.rd (%) So& SttEu lroih '- -- " -_ " dr'lolilrild Wet Creek habitat afish survey was not conducted

Horse Creek #1 atBllWprivate line 2 pass 7/97 88 1 l7 22 (22) 24 (22-29) 27.3 100 yes

I{orse Creek #2 0-8 km below Forest 3 pass 6/95 34 1.3 10 r7(r7) t7 (r7-r8) 38.8 100 yes boundary

Honse Lake Creek 300 m above Forest visual 752 1.02 none observed boundary

Horsethief Canyon 20 m above Corral visual 7/9'.7 30 ZL none observed steam appeared Creek Canyon Creek intermittent

Hurst Creek confluence ofleft and visual 7/97 none observed lovrer sec'tion ts right forks appeared N) inlermitterf N) hon Creek justabovehonCreek lpass 9/96 88 2.2 4 (8) 100 no Road 2 pass 8/95 93 2.2 14(r4) zoftlar> ro.r 100 no

Jackson Creek justabovelronOreek I pass 9/95 73 2.1 2 (2) 100 no habitat limited Road

LittleLost#l (BLM) 0.8kmbelowBig I pass 9/93 t44 6.7 6 (n/a) 100 SpringsCreek

Little lost #2 (BLM) 0.4 km belowBuck 2 pass 9/93 208 4.7 12 (n/a) $$2a3) t.6 92 andBird Road

Little Iost #3 (BLM) at ClydeCampground 2 pass 9/93 234 7.l 125 (n/a) 238(158-318) 14.3 96 I 3

Little Lost #4 lower end oflower 2 pass 1/97 108 14(r4) l4 (14-16) 1.8 7l t4 (BLM Sawmil#a) pasture 2 pass 8/93 105 5.0 A(nla) 14(r+r4) 2;7 93 7 :_ ::

Little Lost #5 above Mahogany 2 pass 7/97 131 8.6 24 Q4) 25Q4-28) an t) 8 t'7 (BLM Sawmill #3) CreekRoad crossing 2 pass 8/93 109 5.0 l0 (n/a) l r (r0-12) 70 20 10 1T

Little Lost #6 lowerportionofupper 2 pass 7197 131 7.2 27 (27) 33(27-46) 3.5 93 yes (BLM Sawmill#2) exclosure 2 oass 8193 94 7;7 42 hla\ 48 @2-59\ 6.6 93 ; ApFndix A (c@riN€d). SummrrTof rsDpling efio.fi ond rcrultr in fie Little Inrt River dninage betwce.d1992 s 11997. (Crtq rlionr arr fortilh:70mm erceptfor BLM liter irdrl€d Dctweetr1992 and 194 which rre for lirh >100pm") saiqtns Wdq To.rrC4tu d P.!qt d6 bd6(%) sethh sha! r.cdd Mdod Dd. Loi6td tuftt(4l topoc 4o!@(dlrht' Itid;re(R.|! ) FLh/lmd Rn n( n lisd cm.s Lftlel.r:lst#1 2.4 km below Sawmill 2 pass 7/97 I l0 1' l0 40 (40) 4l (40-54) 5.7 9083yes (BLM Sawmill #l) CanyonRoad 2 pass 8/93 110 t-J 43 (nla) 55 (44-68) 7.0 91 9 --

Little Lost #8 at Forestboundarv 2 pass 7/97 t82 9.3 I I 63(63) 7[ (63-83) 4' 9235 no I fishappeared (FSSawmill#1) 4 pass 9195 t26 8.5 13 104(r05) 129(104-136) rt.2 9343 no to be a Bk-Bl hybrid ('97) '75 Little Inst#9 behindGuardStation 2pass 7197 158 9.2 11 ('19) 93(7s-117) 6.4 87 ll 3 2 fish appeared (FSSawmill#2) 3 pass 9/95 162 7.6 7 97 (97) 99(97-102) 8.0 93 4 3 no to be Bk-Bl hybrid (97)

Little Lost#10 above Mill Creek 2 pass 7/97 ll2 7.8 12 62 (62) 84 (62-lt7) 9.6 65 35 yes some fish (FSSawmill #3) 3 pass 9/95 103 5"7 12 s2(s2) 53,(52-55) 9.0 79 15 yes appearedtobe Bk-Blhybrid ('e7)

Littlelost#lOa lOmabovehonCreek lpass 8/97 100 9.1 13 3l (34) 39 58 yes ts (FS Sawmill #3a) Road 1 pass 9/96 91 8.4 6 2e (30) 66 34 yes (/)N) Little Lost#11 0.4 km belowTimber 2 pass 7/97 t23 8.1 1a 2s (28) 41Q5-ro4) /< 48 52 yes (FS Sawmill #a) Creek 2 pass 9t9s t22 8.3 8 26Q6) 36(2648) 3.6 b) 35 yes

LftrleInst#12 0.8km above 2 pass 7/97 tl4 5.3 IJ 45 (46) 4?(4s-s6) 8.1 l3 87 yes (FS Savunill#5) MoorshineCreek 3 pass 8/9s tt6 5.5 6 27 Q7) 2eQ7-33) 4.6 26 74 no

Little Lost #13 1.6km aboveSmithie 2 pass 8/9s 83 3.0 26 (27) 5l (26-88) 20.4 100 (FS Savunill#6) Fork

Little Lost #14 400 m aboveFirebox I pass 22 (26) (FS Sawnill#7) Creek

Long I-ost Creek#1 3.2 km aboveDry I pass 8/95 502 22 noneobserved Creek(belowfalls)

Long Lost Creek#2 0.8 km abovefalls I pass 8/95 802 22 noneobserved

Long Lost Creek#3 at endofroad (1.5km I pass 8/95 1002 22 noneobserved belowHell Canyon)

Long Lost Creek #4 100 meters above #3 I pass 8/95 1002 22 none observed

MaFi.Sui@ [email protected] 1@ 6195 5t 0.5" -- @.ohddlrd ltbitdlioit d AppendixA (c@thuelt), sudmrlt of .rnFliag €ffort! snd IE ultt in the Little Ltt Rlier ttraimgp betweer1992 ed 1997. (cstoldioBs st€ for fth tomm €xceDtfor DLM ritet rrmDleil betwecnDq! 'ltd 1994which .re for lilh >100mm.) s- b! wrlg To..l@ Popdd@ 8!.ds(96) 8"ddn SaEr Ircdm Mff Dj. Iariifo) rvurntd Tdrp'C t0@(.[ft!l' E drd.(Rolcl m/tmE' Rn E|r & hgot CoEott M.lo6rycG.k#r c$lo2hEt lw lld 6195 2t [email protected]!.1 di\tlsi@

Mahogany Creek #2 3 locatiors above visual./ 752 12 none observed diversion I pass

Massacre Creek 40 mabove Squaw I pass 7/97 200 J.L l4 I (1) 100 Creek

Meadow Creek #l at Forest boundary 2 pass 6/95 o/ .75 17 (Le) l8 (r7-r9) 35.5 12 88 (umamed tributary)

Meadow Creek #2 0.8 km above Forest visual/ 6/95 502 .52 none observed habitatlimited (unnamed tributary) boundary I pass

Mill Creek #l atMill Creek 2 pass 8/97 73 4.t 8 s4 (57) 62 (54-74) 20"7 3934no some flsh Campground F 2 pass 8/95 70 3.6 l0 42 (44) s0 (43-57) 20.0 12 52 36 no appearedtobe N) Bk-Bl hybrid F' ('es&'97)

Mill Creek #2 0.5 km above trailhead I pass 9/96 6 (6) 3 fish appeared to be Bk-Bl hybri4 I rainbowirout wasobserved but uncapured

Mill Creek#3 upsheamfromMill visual 8/95 502 l.o2 none observed CreekLake

Mill Creelq umamed 50 meters above Mill I pass 9/96 252 0.52 none observed habitatlimited tributary0.5 kmabove Creek trailhead

Moffit Creek above Little Lost/ visual 5/97 102 252 none observed habitatlimited Palsimeroi Road

Moonshine Creek #l immediately below I pass 52 none observed SawmillRoad

Moonshine Creek#2 immediately above I pass 9/95 2A2 none observed Sawmill Road App€ndir A (c@timed). $tDmtry of lroplitrg €fiort, r|td r€$lts ir the Little L.6t Rtver drrinrge betw€.n 1992rnd 1997. (Calcd.ti@! rre for lilh :70DD €$eDt lor BLM ritq ,ampledbetw€ctr 1992 strd 1994wlich ,re for firh >100m.) so|Phs Wdg roi.lcqhtid _ Po[lldd 6D.d6(%) S."t& st|td L..ntm M.t!o.r he Iatth(pl ttAtXXm) Iop"c t0@( 0rb)' E rM.(Rat.) Fr'b100d Rb BL Br Pwr [email protected] Iio6!hi@ #3 25oarboresahill lpd 6gi n \.9 7 t@otcdwd R@d

North Creek#l 0.4 km aboveForest I pass 8/9s 22 f I (l) boundary

North Creek#2 0.8 km aboveForest I pass 8/95 402 1.52 none observed boundary

Pine Creek 1"0km aboveBasin visual 6197 1002 o5 none observed Creek

QuigleYCreek #1 25 maboveSawmill I pass 6/97 t1 r (1) 100 CanyonRoad

Quigley Creek#2 200 m aboveSawmill I pass 6/97 8'.7 1.2 none observed CanyonRoad ts N) RedrockCreek #l 0.2 km aboveTimber I pass 9/95 42 1.9 8 (8) 100 (Jl Creek

Re(hockCreek #2 top endoftransect is I pass 6/97 90 10(10) culvert on road 460A

RedrockCreek, Rig[rt 400 m abovekft Fork lpass 6/97 52 t-a none observed Fork

RedrockCreek, Left 200 m aboveRiglrt I pass )6 none observed Fork Fork '7/9',7 RockyRun Creek 0.5 km abovepipeline I pass lot 0.9 none observed diversion

Sands Creek #l 0.2 km aboveForest visual 7/95 402 1.52 none observed boundary

Sands Creek #2 2 beaverponds0.8 km visual 7/95 none observed aboveForestboundary

Sands Creek #3 1.2km aboveForest I pass 7/95 1002 1.52 none observed boundary App€ndir A (@nttureo. Sldesry of rtmpling effortt ad rerolt! ir tie Little Loct River drelnagebdm4 f9t mi!1997. (Crlcalrtimr rI€ for filh:70Dm for BLM sites between1992 and 1994which are for fish >100 mm. Sampling Watcr Total Captureil Species (%) Sculpin Stream Location Methoil Date >70mm(all tr'isb/100rnz Rb Bk Bl Present Comments Creek #l 100m aboveTimber 1pass 6/97 8 (8) 100 no Creek

Slide Creek #2 0.9 km aboveTimber I pass 6/9'.1 none observed Creek

Smithie Fork #l just aboveSawmill 2 pass 7/97 79 J.J 7 68(6e) 71(68-83) 20.1 97 no mean width does Roadbridge 2 pass 8/95 71 4.2 t2 75(77) 83(77-89) 28.4 93 no not include side charmelthat was inclu&d in transect

SmithieFork #2 3.2 km above Little 2 pass 126 3.4 8e(e2> r30(r02-158) 30.3 100 l,ost River

SmithieFork Trib. 200 m above 1 pass 9/97 45 1.5 I (t) (umamed) confluence ts l\) --(5) o\ SouthCreek #1 at diversion I pass 6/95 302 1.52 100 no

SouthCreek #2 200 m above diversion I pass 8/95 202 1.52 noneobserved no

<1 SouthCreek #3 2.0 km above Forest 3 pass 8t95 1.6 at \zt) 27(27) no boundary

SouthCreek #4 3.2 km above Forest I pass 8/95 252 1.52 noneobserved boundary

SquawCreek #l 0.8 km above Sawmill I pass 9/96 t) 3.3 ll 2',7Q4) JJ 5t 15 (Sawmill Canyon) CanyonRoad

SquawCreek #2 4.0 km above Sawmill 2 pass 7/97 56 29 27 (40) 2TQ7-28) 24.1 +l 48 ll no some fish (Savmill Canyon) Road 3 pass 8/95 66 3.3 l0 26 (2e) 2T\(26-2e) t2.3 ZJ 58 t9 no appearedto be Bk-Blhybrid ('9s&'e7)

SquawCreek#3 O.9kmaboveNorth I pass 12(re) 100 (Sawmill Canyon) Fork

Squaw Creek, North 0.6 km above Squaw I pass 9196 5'.7 1.7 10 e (12) 56 44 Fork #1 (Sawmill Creek Appeddir A (contimr€d).SuDmrry 0flrmptrg efrort! end re, t! in the Uttle Lrt Rilcr drririge betn€to 1992snd 19!t7.(C{tculrtioDr sre for tilL:?omm erceDlfor BLM rit€r srmllcd between1992 sntl 1994rhich ar€ for filh U100@,) S.r{|hC T.,t rc.I'hlril PoIEld@ SD.d.(%) Sotlh StEo Ia.dd !d.tb.d D.t Iarltlh) wlixd TdD"C >70m(.ll!rh)' Ecdr!d.(nor.) IElnmf Ab B( Efl lrqcrl (M SquawCreek, Norlh l.8kmabove Squaw I pass 6/97 tt4 1.8 8 (8) 13 88 no Fork #2 (Sawmill Creek Can.)

SquawCreek, tributary aboveSquaw I pass 8/95 47 0.9 3 (3) 6733 urmamedtributary Creek#2onsouthside (SawmillCanyon) ofroad

SquawCreek BLM #1 just aboveWet Creek 2 pass 8/92 t07 1.0 a0 @/a) 47 (40-52) 43.9 (Wet Creek) Road

Squaw Creek BLM #2 168 metersabove #l 2 pass 8/92 99 t.2 37 (n/a) 43 (37-49) 36.2 100 (Wet Creek)

Squaw Creek #2a 2.0 km above Wet I pass 6t96 502 0.52 noneobserved habitatvery Creek degraded

Squaw Creek #3 (Wet 1.9kmbelow I pass 6/96 302 5 (5) yes P 1.52 l5 100 N) Creek) Massacre Creek ! Squaw Creek #4 (Wet 65 m above Massacre I pass 100 1.5 4 (4) 100 Creek) Creek

Summerhouse Canyon 1.2 km below Forest I pass 7/95 1002 .5 noneobserved #l boundary

Sunnnerhouse Canyon 0.8 km above Forest visual 7/95 1002 noneobserved #2 boundary

Summerhouse Canyon 1.6 km above Forest I pass 7/95 502 noneobserved #3 boundarv

SummerhouseCanyon 3.2 km above Forest I pass 7195 1002 1.02 noneobserved #4 boundary

Summit Creek#1 4.0 kmbelow Sa\i.rnill 2 pass 8/92 97 1.8 23 (n/a) 28 (2335) 16.0 (BLM#3) Rd

Summit Creek#2 1.6 kmbelow Sawmill 3 pass 8/92 106 2.8 70 (n/a) 72 (70-76) 24.3 100 (BLM#2) Rd

Summit Creek#3 0.8 km below Sawmill 3 pass 8/92 ll0 3.0 129 (n/a) 130(129-133) 39.4 100 (BLM#l) Rd App€ndixA (cmti ed). SuDDrry of srnplirg efrorf! nlrt rerult, tr the Little Lo,rtRiver drriDsgebetween 1992 a[d 1997. (Crtqrlelton! rr€ for firh =70nd erceDtfor ELM .its r{DDled betwc€n1992 rtrrt 1994which rrc for fi,h >100trm.) solhs wdq Tot l c. 4.d PoIIldo $.d.r e/5) s@llhr Sibd! L..dd rLalon Dll. Logtb{r) $rdo!@) T@p"C :70@(dlti)' E!tuj.(ndi.) nruro{ ol Rh E Br PEd C ei 1eS1 9s 3 2 y6 CanyonRoad

Summit Creek#5 100 mbelow Iron 1 pass 6/97 59 7.2 12 2 (2) 100 yes Springs

Summit Creek#6 Iron Springs I pass 6/97 170 l.J 1) 6 (6) 100 yes

Timber Creek#l 0.8 km above Little 3 pass 7/97 133 4.7 10 42 (46) 43 (424s) 6.9 5 -- 95 yes Lost River 2 pass 8/95 133 3.6 10 23 (23) 26(2330) 5.5 l7 83 y€s

TimberCreek#2 100 m above Slide hook and 6/97 1002 2.02 I (l) 100 no app. 5 other bull Creek line troutbetween 100-200mm were observed ('e7)

Ike Creek #1 atdivenion pass t< F Uncle I 9/9s 53 5 (e) 33 67 no t\) @ Uncle Ike Creek#2 1.5 kmabove diversion I pass 9/9s 59 2.1 6 3 (4) 67 33 no

Uncle Ike Creek #3 4.8 kmabove diversion visual 9/95 102 .52 none observed no habitat limited

Warm Creek #l O.4kmabove Little 2 pass 6/95 47 2.6 l0 8 (8) 8 (8-e) 6.7 100 no I,ost

Warm Creek #2 0.6 km above upper I pass 6/95 34 2 I (l) t00 no 2 bull trout app. Forest boundary 70 and110 mm wereobserved but uncaptured

Warm SpringsCreek below Little Lost 2 pass 86 (nla) e4 (88-99) 24.8 100 (BLM) Highway

Wet Creek(BLM #7) just below Pancheri 3 pass 8/92 118 ). t 27 (n/a) 28 (27-3r) 6.4 85 diversion

Wet Creek(BLM #6) justbelow Dry Creek 2 pass 8t92 94 4 (nla) 5 (4-6) t.2 hydro

Wet Creek(BLM #5) 3.6 kmbelow Squaw 2 pass 25 (n/a) 29 (2s-3s) 5.1 96 Creek AppendixA (conttnueo. Sumrmryofrrmplitrg effort! rtrd rc$tltr itrlhe Littl€ LodtRiv€r drrimge befw€en1992 rr|tl1997. (Crlculrtim! rr€ forfirh:708m €rceptfor BIIII !it€! .aDDleilbetw€en 1992 trd 1994which rle for firh >100m.) Sampling Wate^r Total Capfirred . Population Species (%) Sculpin Location Methoil Date Lenqth(m) Width(m) Temp"C >70mm(allfish)r Estimate(Ranse) Fish/100m2 Rb BK BI Present Commerrts Wet Creek (BLM #4) 2.0 km below Squaw 3 pass 3.9 2l (n/a) 22(2r-24) Creek

Wet Creek (BLM #3) 1.2 km above Squaw 2 pass 8/92 2.8 L7 (n/a) 2r (17-26) 6.6 94 Creek

Wet Creek (BLM #2) 0.8 kmbelow #1 2 pass 8192 rt7 3.3 19 (n/a) 20(1e-2r) 5.2 100

Wet Creek (BLM #1) 2.4kmbelow Fonest 2 pass 8/92 89 4.3 2l (n/a) 22(2r-24) 5.7 100 boundary

Wet Creek#O topendoftransectis lpass 7/97 t70 5.1 l0 l6 (16) 81 13 6 yes Big Creek

Wet Creek #l 0.6 km above Forest I pass 7/96 104 2.2 t0 28 (28) 96 yes boundary 3 pass 7/95 t92 2.2 l5 34 (34) zs pi-zt1 8.3 100 :. yes ts Wet Creek #la 250 m above Coal Cr. I pass 7/96 87 2.3 12 l5 (15) It ,1 yes N) Wet Creek #l aa beaverpondbelow snorkel 7/96 10 402 602 Hilts Creek

Wet Creek #lb at Hilts Creek 2 pass 8/97 t02 3.6 t2 65 (6e) 69(65:76) 18.8 37 63 yes

WetCreek#2 0.5 km above Hifts 2 pass 8i9s 151 3.5 12(13) 13(12-14) 2.4 75 25 yes Creek (top end of pn"at")

Wet Creek #3 0.8 km aboveHilts 3 pass 6/96 138 3.6 10 54 (54) s6 (54-60) 11.3 28 72 no Creek(inmeadow) 2 pass 8/95 95 2.8 8 2eQe) 32(2e36) t2.l 3l 69 no

Wet Creek #3a 108m above#3 2 pass 6/96 48 2.8 9 11(ll) 11(11-12) 8.2 36 64

Wet Creek #4 2.2 km aboveHilts I pass 7t9s 135 2.0 7 noneobserved included 3 Creek sections onmain charmeland I on a side channel

Wet Creek,unnamed 100 meters above Wet I pass 1.0 17 - - (30') all fish were tributary(across from Creek rainbowtrout Coal Creek)#1 35-65 mm Appotdir A (cmlided). $mtlary of srmpl|ngetrort! rtrd rcrulfi itr the Little Lolt River dirilrge betwern1992 rnd 1997. (Crtculrtionsrt€ for 6d:?oton €rceDtfor BLM .itc. ramDledbetween 1992 .rd 1994which {IE for firh >100mm.) S.ldllht lot l Cqhtd PoFHo sr.d6 (%) sorF St|€D L.d@ M.tlrd lta. Iagilor) uddiud rd!"C >70@(.[ fhtr)' E rhd.G!$) ILMooD' Rh BL I! PEd Cl'@c! w.rctds'n.-.d 0.6h!.!4 wd llrs 787 91 1,2 l0 20(21) 100 tibulry(!ro tm Ot* Coal Creek)#2

Williams Creek#l 1.6kmbelow Forest I pass 6/95 752 12 I (1) 100 yes boundary 't Williams Creek#2 beaverpond at Forest hookand 6/97 (7) 100 boundary line

Williams Creek#3 1.6km aboveForest 3 pass 6195 1.4 7 (12) 7 (7-8) 100 boundary

Y Springs at Forestboundary visual 6/95 dueto limited habitat a survey was not condusted F (^) Urmarnedtributary at Forestboundary visual 6/9s 202 .)- none observed habitat limited approximatelyI km southof Waf,mCreek ' For BLM sitessampled between 1992 alr.d1994 this columnindicates number of fish > 100mrn 'Representsan estimateor an approximation. tM6fSe!crydr.dh1iilt *[email protected]@Ft4 t!..fq.,filhk6Fld!.dD.ldwlb.te!..tbct,ap.s6 [email protected]*fAtuEdbr.*idoter..!6ed,ME pcehEiL.!d'e6r.d APPENDIX B Appendix B. Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

BadgerCreek #l- (9120/95) 3.2 km aboveLittle LostRiver

RainbowTrout (n=4)

50

45

40

35

r30

7, 20 l5

l0

5

L€ngth (mm)

L32 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

BadgerCreek #2 - (9120195) 1.4 km abovethe Forest boundarY RainbowTrout (n=13)

50

45

40

35

!30 o

z 1,o 15

l0

5

BullTrout (n=1)

' 156 Length (mm)

133 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

BadgerCreek #3 - (7116197) 0.3 km aboveBunting CunyonCreek RainbowTrout (n=17)

Ifngth (mm)

Bull Trout(n=2)

r34 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

BadgerCreek #3 - (6120195) 0.3 km aboveBunting CunyonCreek RainbowTrout (n=17)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

15 r0 5

Length (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

I*ngth (mm)

13s Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

BasinCreek #2 - (7/02/97) 300 m belowPine Creek RainbowTrout (n=21

Ls6 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River dtainage.

Bear Creek#l - (9195) 0.6 km aboveSawmill CanYonRoad RainbowTrout (n=20)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l5

l0

5

hngth (mm)

r37 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Big Creek#l - (9/13196) 0,8 km sbove Wet Creek RainbowTrout (n=13)

50

45

40

35

!30

220 t5

l0

Ixngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=1)

I*ngth (mm)

138 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Big Creek#l - (8/1L194) 0.8 km aboveWet Creek RainbowTrout (n=13)

50

45

40

35

L30

220 l5

l0

5

If,ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=3)

45

40

35

30

25 E, 20 15

l0

5

Irngth (mm)

L39 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

Big Creek#La - (9113196) 20 metersabove Forest boundary RainbowTrout (n=16)

I*nglh (mm)

BrookTrout (n=20)

i@ ,56 a@ 350 4oo 45o Joo kngth (mm)

L40 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Big Creek#2 - (9115194) At trailhead RainbowTrout (n=28)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

l0

5

0 I*ngth (nm)

BrookTrout (n=26)

50

45

40

35

30 o 25

Z 2T l5

l0

5

-.,,''id'.'lob''.ilb'''dob''.j:6'..j06'..j:6','do6'.',i'd...j0. I*ngth (mm)

L4L AppendixB (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Big Creek#3 - (8/11194\ Immediatelybelow beaver Pond RainbowTrout (n=741

50

45

35

30

25

20

l5

l0

Irength (mm)

BrookTrout (n=46)

50

45

40

35

30

25 z 20

l0

5 o kngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=3) Onebulltrout appeared a hYbrid

50

45

40

35

r30

Z20

l0

5

0 ""'5d'"iob"'irb"'iob i:b ioi i5i 106 'i50 5m kngth (mm)

L42 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Big Creek#4 - (91L5194) Immediately abovebeaver Pond RainbowTrout (n=23)

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

t0

kngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=1241

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

l0

5

0 ""'!0".-i@"'i56"'r@"'i5i---,@ 350 400 450 500 If,ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=7) all bull trout appearedto be hybrids

50

45

40

35

L30 o aq<

220

l5

l0

5

0 ""'!d"'ioi"'iii "ioo---z5b--i@ 350 400 450 J@ I*ngth (mm)

L43 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Big SpringsCreek - (9110/93) 0.8 km aboveBuck and Bird Road RainbowTrout (n=85)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=20)

50

45

40

35

r30

220 l5

l0

5

500 Icngth (mm)

L44 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

BuntingCanyon Creek #1 ' (7116197) 175 m uboveBadger Creek RainbowTrout (n=3)

kngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=6)

50

45

40

35

L30 =".o

Z20

t5

t0

5

0 .' ..' .' - - - - - " "' io'"' io' ir6 icit"' isb' iod''' i56''' ioi 150' ioa I*ngth (mm)

L45 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

CampCreek #l - (9112195) 100 metersabove Timber Creek Bull Trout(n=5)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

L46 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

CoalCreek - (716195) Below gate RainbowTrout (n=9)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220 l5

10

5

I*ngth (mm)

L47 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

DeerCreek (BLM) #1 - (814192) 2.1 km aboveLittle Lost River RainbowTrout (n=211

50

45

40

35

!30

Z20

l0

5

Iength (mm)

L48 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Deer Creek(BLM) #2 - (814192) 7.6 km belowForest boundary RainbowTrout (n=48)

50

45

40

3J

!30

Zzo

l0

5

kngth (mm)

L49 Appendix B. Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Deer Creek(Forest Service) - (6115195) At Forestboundary RainbowTrout (n=38)

I*ngth (mm)

150 Appendix B (continued).Leng1h frequency distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

DeerCreeko North Fork - (6119195) 0.2 km sbovecontluence with South Fotk RainbowTrout (n=178)

ilt ti--ilt;. :lll_.llllllh_ I€ngth (mm)

L5I Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

DeerCreek, South Fork - (6115195) 0.5 km aboveconfluence with Notth Fork RainbowTrout (n=29) Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Dry Creek#l - (819195) 50 meterssbove diversion Pool Rainbowx GutthroatTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

30 o 25 z 20 15

l0

BrookTrout (n=21

50

45

40

35

!30

Z20

l5

l0

5

If,ngth (mm)

153 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drunage.

Dry Creek#2 - (8123195) 0.8 km abovediversion Brook Trout (n=211

50

45

40

35

L30

=.<

220

l0

If,ngth (mm)

t54 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River dral;nage.

Dry Creek#3 - (819195) 150meters above Forest boandary BrookTrout (n=57)

kngth (mm)

155 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Dry Creek#4 - (8/9195) Pool adjacentto #3 BrookTrout (n=67)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220

l5

t0 -5

If,ngth (mm)

156 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Fallert SpringsCreek - (9110193) Above Fsllert SpringsBridge RainbowTrout (n={6}

Irngth (mm)

Ls7 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

FireboxCreek - (7l3ll97) 400 m aboveLittle Lost River Bull Trout(n=41)

Irngth (mm)

158 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Hawley Creek- (9112195) Just aboveIron CreekRoad Bull Trout(n=1)

50

45

40

35

L30 =^.

220

l0 5

Irngth (mm)

159 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

HorseCreek #l - (7116197) Beginning at private proPefiYline RainbowTrout (n=221 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

HorseCreek #2- (612195) 0.8km belowthe Forest boundary RainbowTrout (n=17)

45

40

35

30 o

z 20 l5

l0 s

t6L Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Iron Creek- (9116196) Just aboveIron CreekRosd Bull Trout(n=8)

50

45

40

35

I*ngth (mm)

t62 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Iron Creek- (8123195) fust sbovelron CreekRoad Bull Trout(n=14)

50

40

L30

Z20

t5

l0

5

0 '''''id'''iob''.i:b'''ioh'''ish'..jod'''j:6...j06...,i56...j06 Irngth (mm)

763 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

JacksonCreek - (9112195) fust aboveIron CreekRoad Bull Trout(n=21

50

45

40

35

!30 =..

220

l0 5

Length (mm)

164 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #l - (9/6193) 0.8 km below Big Springs Creek RainbowTrout (n=6)

L65 AppendixB (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #2 - (916/93) 0.4 km belowBuck and Bird Road RainbowTrout (n=11)

50

45

40

35

30

25 z l5

| | | | | I' ''' " | | | r !d io6 irb"' Lob," LsL"' dod','jsd ",.io, " iro jo6 I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

45

40

35

L30 =o ..

220

10

5

0 (mm)

L66 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #3 - (917193) At Clyde Campgroand RainbowTrout (n=1291

50

45

40

35

L30 = .. .) 220 l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

L30 €".o

220

l5

10

5

0 Irngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=4)

kngth (mm)

167 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #4 (BLM Sawmill #4) ' (7ll4l97) Lowerend of lowerpusture RainbowTrout (n=10)

50

45

40

35

b30

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

45

40

35

30

z l5

5

BullTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

&30 1..

Z20

1J

l0

5 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #4 (BLM Sawmill#4) - (8117/93) Lower end of lowerpasture RainbowTrout (n=13)

50

45

40

35

r30 o

Z20

l5

l0

5

' 1oa 454) i00 Irngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=1)

50

40

35

E30 =".o

Z20

l5

10

5

Irngth (mm)

L69 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Littte Lost River #5 (BLM Sawmill#3) - (7/14/97) AboveMahogany CreekRoad RainbowTrout (n=18)

50

45

35 !30

Z20 l5

I-€ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

Icngth (nm)

Bull Trout(n=4)

Irngth (mm)

L70 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River dranage.

Little Lost River #5 (BLM Sawmill#3) - (8117193) AboveMuhogany CreekRoad RainbowTrout (n=7)

50

4S

40

35

L30 o

Z20 l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

h30

220 l5

t0

5

BullTrout (n=1)

50

45

40

35

!30 o

220

10

5 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #6 (BLM Sawmill #2) - (7ll4l97) Lowerportion of upperexclosure RainbowTrout (n=25)

50 45 40 35 r30

Z20 l5 l0 )

BullTrout (n=2)

172 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Losr River #6 (BLM Sawmill #2) - (8116193) Lower portion of upPer exclosare RainbowTrout (n=39)

kngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=1)

40 3s 30

z 20 15

Irngth (mm)

Buff Trout(n=21

Iength (mm)

L73 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Littte Lost River #7 (BLM Sawmill#l) - (7114197) 2.4 km belowSawmill CanYonRoad RainbowTrout (n=36)

50

45

40

35

L30 =..o

220 t5

l0

5

0 - ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' - - ' ' ' io' ioi ir6 iob isb iod i5d iod 'ira too Irneth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

L30

220 l5

l0

5 offi 400 I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

50

45

40

35

L30

220

l5

l0

5

0 ' ' 'i5b 'iob" " " !d " iob" " i5b- a@- asd 400 Length (mm)

t74 Appendix B (continued).Length ftequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sites in the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Littte Lost River #7 (BLM Sawmill#D - $116/93) 2.4 km belowSswmill CanYonRosd RainbowTrout (n=39)

45

40

35

30

25 z 20 l5

l0

5

BrookTrout (n=4)

50

45

40

35

!30 o

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

L75 Appendix B (continued).Length ftequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #8 (FS Sawmill#1) - (7115197) At Forestboundary RainbowTrout (n=58)

50

45

40

35

L30 =o ..

220 l5 t0

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2) one brooktrout appeareda hybrid

50 45 40 35

L30

220 l5 l0 5

I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

L30 ir<

220 l5

10

5

I*ngtft (mm)

L76 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #S(FS Sawmill#1) - (9114195) At Forestboundary RainbowTrout (n=98)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20 l5

10

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=4)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

t5

l0

5

Icngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

!30 Ex

220 l5

l0

5 0 ''iod ""'!d"'lob'''isb r5it ioi i56 kngth (mm)

177 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #9 GS Sawmill#2) - (7117197) Behind Guard Station RainbowTrout (n=69)

45

40

35

L30 o

z 20 l5

l0

5

0 Irngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=8)

z

Irngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=2)

I*ngth (mm)

178 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #9 (FS Sawmill#2) - (9114/95) Behind Guard Station RainbowTrout (n=90)

50

45

40

30

z ,0 15

l0

5

0 kngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=4)

50 45 40 35 r30

Z20 l5 t0 5

BullTrout (n=3)

50 45 40 35 L30

220 l5 l0

kngth (mm)

L79 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #10(FS Sawmill#3) - (7ll7197) AboveMill Creek RainbowTrout (n=40)

Ifngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=221 some brook trout appeared hybrids

Irngth (mm)

180 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #rc (F'SSawmill #3) - (9113195) AboveMill Creek RainbowTrout (n=41)

50

4S

40

35

r30

Zzi l5

t0

5

' ' ,iod 454t 500

BrookTrout (n=8)

50

45

40

35

!30

220 l5

10

5

BullTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

L30

2q<

220

15

t0

5

--'',!d'..iob'''i:b...iob,''isir'..jod.'.js6...,i00.'',i56...jod Icngth (mm)

181 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #lua (FS sawmill #3) - (8122197) 10 m abovelron CreekRosd RainbowTrout {n=121

Irngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=1)

(mm)

Bull Trout(n=211

182 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh ftequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost Rivel dtunage.

Litfle Lost River #lDa (Fs sawmitl #3a)- 9116196 10 m aboveIron CreekRosd RainbowTrout (n=19)

50

45

35

!30

Z20

l5

Length (mm)

BullTrout (n=11)

kngth (mm)

183 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #ll (F.SSawmill #4) - (7115197) Below Timber Creek RainbowTrout (n=15)

50

45

40

35

k30 z.<

Z20

l5

l0

5

BullTrout (n=13)

' ' _ - i56 ioi ,5d' ioo 350 4oo 45o t@ Length (mm)

L84 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscapturcd in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #Il (FS Sawmill#4) - (9113195) Below Timber Creek RainbowTrout (n=171

50

45

40

35

L30

Zzo l5

10

5

If,ngth Gnm)

BullTrout (n=9)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l0

5

kngth (mm)

18s Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainase.

Little Lost River #12 (F'SSawmill #5) - (7115/97) AboveMoonshine Creek RainbowTrout (n=7)

45

40

-" " "5d "'io6"'i:6"'iai"'is6'-'i@''-3:50-- 404 450 i00 I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=39)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

t5

l0 5 ____l__

I*ngth (mm)

L86 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaplured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #12 (FS Sawmill #5) - (8/8/95) AboveMoonshine Creek RainbowTrout (n=7)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220 l5

l0

5

Length (mm)

BuffTrout (n=201

r87 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River #13 (FS Sawmill#6) - (812195) 7.6 km aboveSmithie Fork Bull Trout(n=271

188 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydisUibution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drairnge.

Little Lost River #14 (FS Sawmill #7) - (7l3ll97) 400 m aboveFirebox Creek Bull Trout (n=26)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220 t5

l0

5

189 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

MassacreCreek - (7l0ll97) 40 m aboveSquaw Creek

Twotrout were observed in the transectbut notcaptured. One was positively identified as a rainbowtrout.

L90 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

MeadowCreek, (unnamed tributary #1) - (6128195) At Forestboundary RainbowTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

r30

220

l0

5

BrookTrout (n=171

50 45 40 35 L30 =".P

Z20

t5

l0

5

i50

L91 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Mill Creek#l - (8122197) Below Mill Creek Campground RainbowTrout (n=5)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

l5

t0

5

0

BrookTrout (n=50) manybrook trout appeared hYbrids

35

L30

Z20 l5

t5o

BulfTrout (n=21

Length (mm)

192 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Milt Creek#l - (8116195) Below Mill Creek CamPground RainbowTrout (n=5)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l5

l0

5

kngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=241

50

45

40

35

r30

Z20

l5

l0

5

0

I*ngth (mm)

two bull trout appearedto be hybrids BullTrout (n=15)

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

l5

t0

o 450 Irngth (mm)

L93 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Mill Creek#2 - (9/16/96) 0.5 km abovethe trailhead

one rainbow trout was observedin the transectbut not captured most brook trout and bull trout appearedto be hybrids BrookTrout (n=4)

50 45 40 35 !r 30

220 r5 l0 5

450 ioo I*ngth (mm)

Bull Trout(n=2)

50

45

40

35

30

25 z 20 l5

l0

5

Irngth (mm)

L94 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

North Creek#l - (8-17-95) 0.4km aboveForest boundarY

One rainbow trout approdmately 100 mm in length was captured. Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

QuigleyCreek #l - (6126197) 25 m aboveSawmill CanyonRoad

One bull trout 195 mm in length was captured. Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

RedrockCreek #I - (9112195) 0.2 km aboveTimber Creek Bull Trout (n=8)

Irngth (mm)

L97 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

RedrockCreek #2 - (6126197) Top endof trunsectis culverton road 460A BullTrout (n=10)

50

45

40

35

L30

=.< zt0 l5

l0

5

Irngth (mm)

198 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SlideCreek #l - (6127197) 100 m aboveTimber Creek Bull Trout(n=8)

50

45

40

35

!30

420 l5

l0

5

L€ngth (mm)

L99 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SmithieFork #l - (7llll97) AboveSawmill CanyonRoad bridge RainbowTrout (n=2)

50 45 40 35

L30

220 t5 l0

0 - " "'io'"'ioi "'i:6 "'i06"'is:0"'r'od'"iri''-4bo "i5o- 5@ kngth (mm)

Bull Trout(n=67)

50

45

40

35

L30

220 t5

l0

5

L€ngth (mm)

200 Appendix B (continued).Leng1h frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SmithieFork #l - (8123195) AboveSawmill CanyonRoad bridge RainbowTrout (n=5)

50

45

40

35

!30

z20

l5

l0

5

L€ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=721

1oo 450 Length (mm)

20L Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SmithieFork #2 - (812195) 3.2 km aboveLittle Lost River BullTrout (n=92)

50

45

40

35

L30

220 l5

10

5

kngth (mm)

202 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SouthCreek #1 - (6195) At diversion Rainbow trout ranging from approximately75 rttmto 200 mm in length

20s Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SouthCreek #3 - (8/17195) 2.0km aboveForest boundary RainbowTrout (n=271

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220

l0

5

Irngth (nm)

204 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #1 (SawmillCanyon) - (9/13196) 0.8 km aboveSawmill CanYonRoud RainbowTrout (n={3)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=171

50

45

40

35

630

Ezo l5

l0

5

I*nglh (mm)

Bull Trout(n=4)

50

45

40

35

L30 z^. 220 t5

205 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #2 (SawmillCanyon) - (7116197) AboveNorth Fork RainbowTrout (n={3}

50

45

40

35

L30

220

l5

l0

5

5@

BrookTrout (n=241

50

45

40

35

L30 o ;.<

Z20 l5 l0

J

Bull Trout(n=3)

45

40

35

30

25

I*ngth (mn)

206 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #2 (SawmillCanyon) - (8/15195) AboveNorth Fork RainbowTrout (n=6)

50 45 40 35

L30 o

Z20 15 l0 5

BrookTrout (n=18)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

t5

l0

5

Irngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=5) Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #3 (SawmillCanyon) - (8123196) 0.9 km aboveNorth Fork SquawCreek Bull Trout(n=19)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220 l5

t0

5

0 Irngth (mm)

208 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek, North Fork #1 (SawmillCanyon) - (9ll4l9ql 4.6 km aboveSquout Creeh Brook Trout (n=7)

50

45

40

35

!30 o =.< zx0 t5

10

5

0 I*ngth (nm)

Bull Trout (n=5)

kngth (mm)

209 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek, North Fork #2 (SawmillCanyon) - (6127197) 1.8 km aboveSquaw Creek BrookTrout (n=1)

50

45

40

35

L30

=.<

220 t5

l0

5

kngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=7)

50

45

40

35

L30

=.<

220 l5

t0

5

I*ngth (mm)

2L0 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek (Sawmill) (unnamed tributaryl) - (S/15/95) aboveSquaw Creek#2 on south side of road RainbowTrout (n=1)

50

45

40

35

L30

Z20

l5

t0

5

L€ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

JO

45

40

35

L30 o 9- ..

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

t This tributary entersSquaw Creek on the south side ofthe streama short distanceabove the confluence of SquawCreek and North Fork Squaw. zLT Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #1 (Wet Creek)- (8110/92) Just aboveWet Creek Road RainbowTrout (n=49)

If,ngth (mm)

2L2 AppendixB (continued).Leng1h frequency distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #2 QVetCreek) - (8110/92) 168 metersabove #1 RainbowTrout (n=40)

150 L€ngth (mm)

2L3 Appendix B (continued).Lengttr frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #3 (Wet Creek)- (6117196) 7.9 km belowMassacre Creek RainbowTrout (n=5)

50 45 40 35

L30 o

220 t5 t0 5

Length (mm)

2L4 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SquawCreek #4 (Wet Creek)- (7l0ll97) 65 m aboveMassacre Creek RainbowTrout (n=4)

50

45

40

35

L30 o aq<

220 l5

10

5

Irngth (mm)

2r5 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptued in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SummitCreek #1 (BLM #3) - (816/92) 4.0 km belowSawmill CanYonRoad RainbowTrout (n=211

50

45

40

35

L30 =..o

220

l5

t0

5

L€ngth (mm) BrookTrout (n=21

50

45

40

35

L30

zx0 l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

2L6 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SummitCreek #2 (BLl.{ #2) - (816192) 7.6 km belowSswmill CanYonRoad RainbowTrout (n=771

50

45

40

35

30

25

Length (mm)

2L7 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drunage.

SummitCreek #3 (BLM #1) - (816192) 0.8 km belowSawmill CanYonRoad RainbowTrout (n=136)

50

45

40

35

L30 c Er<

220 l5

l0

5

L€ngth (mm)

2L8 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SummitCreek #4 - (l0ll2l95) 400m belowSawmill Canyon Road

RainbowTrout (n=62)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220

l5

t0

5 0 kngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=21

50

45

40

35

r30 o

220

l5

10

5

0 Irngth (mm)

One bull trout approximately200 mm long was also captured'

2L9 Appendix B (continued).Lenglh frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

SummitCreek #5 - (6127197) 100m belowlron Springsinflow

RainbowTrout (n=21

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

l5

l0

5

I*ngth (mm)

220 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drunage.

SummitCreek #6 - (6127/97) Iron Springs RainbowTrout (n=6)

50

45

40

35

L30

Ezo

10 5

I*ngth (mm)

22r Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in samplingsites in the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Timber Creek#l - (7ll1l97) 0.8 km aboveLittle Lost River (Sawmill Creek) RainbowTrout (n=3)

50 45

35 30 25 20 l5 t0 5

kngth (mn)

BullTrout (n=43)

Icngth (mm)

222 Appendix B (continued).Length:frequency diirtribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin tle Little LostRiver diainage. . ', .

Timber Creek#l - {8/8/95) 0.8 km aboveLittle Lost River (Swmill Cteeh) RainbowTrout {n=4}

50

45

40

35

!30

Z. 20

l5

10

J

Bull Trout (n={9)

50

45

40

35

L30

220

10

5

I*ngth (m)

223 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sites in the Little Lost River drainage.

Timber Creek#2 - (6126197) 100 m aboveSlide Creele

One bull trout approximately165 mm in length was capturedduring approximatelyI hour of hook and line sampling. Approximately 5 other bull trout 100 to 200 mm in length were observed.

224 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in samplingsites in the Little Lost River drunase.

UncleIke Creek- (9121195) At diversion RainbowTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

l5

l0

5

' n5i Length (mm)

BrookTrout (n=6)

Length (mm)

225 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Unclelke Creek- (9121195) 1.6 km abovediversion RainbowTrout (n=2)

BrookTrout (n=2)

50

45

40

35

L30 =r<

220

10

5

Length (mm)

226 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Warm Creek#l - (6127195) 0.4 km aboveLittle Lost River (Sawmill Creek) RainbowTrout (n=8)

50

45

40

35

L30

Zzo

15

10

5

If,ngth (mm)

227 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

\ilarm Creek#2 - (6127195) 0.6km aboveupper Forest boundary BullTrout (n=1)

Irngth (mm)

Two additional bull trout approximately70 mm and 110 mm in length were seenin the transect.

228 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Warm SpringsCreek - (8117193) Below Little Lost River HighwaY RainbowTrout (n=86)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

220 l5

l0

5

' ,i50 Length (mm)

229 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(BLM #7) - (8113192) Jast below Pancheri diversion RainbowTrout (n=23)

50

45

40

35

30

75

Lenglh (mm)

BrookTrout (n=2)

z

L€ngth (mm)

Bull Trout (n=4)

I*ngth (mm)

230 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(BLM #6) - (8113192) fust below Dry Creek hydroelectricplant RainbowTrout (n=3)

50

43

40

35

L30 o

220 l5

l0

L€ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

' ,ioo Irngth (mm)

23L Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek (BLM #5) - (8/13192) 3.6 km belowSquaw Creek RainbowTrout (n=241

50

4S

40

35

L30 o

Z20 l5

l0

kngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

35

30

25

20

l5 r0

Irngth (mm)

232 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(BLM #4) - (8112192) 2.0 km belowSquaw Creek RainbowTrout (n=211

I€ngth (mm)

233 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(BLM #3) - (8/11192) 1.2 km aboveSquaw Creek RainbowTrout (n=20)

L€ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

50

45

40

35

L30 = ^.

220 l5 10 5

Length (mm)

234 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(BLM #2) - (8/11192) 0.8 km below BLM #1 RainbowTrout (n=211

50

45

40

35

L30 =..e

220 l5 l0

Irngth (mm)

235 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drunage.

Wet Creek(BLM #1) - (8/11192) 2.4 km below the Forest boundury RainbowTrout (n=25)

50

45

40

35

!30 o ? r<

220 l5

l0

I*ngth (mm)

236 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

WetCreek0-(7102197) Top end of transect is Big Creek RainbowTrout (n=13)

L€ngth (mm)

BrookTrout (n=21

50

45

40

35

L30

220 l5

l0

5

0 " "' io.'"io6"'i:6..' ioi"' i: kngthIf,ngth (mn)(mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

I*ngth (mm)

237 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drunage.

Wet Creek(f'S #l) - (7103/96) 0.6 km abovethe Forest boundary RainbowTrout (n=271

50

4S

40

3S

30

25 z

I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=1)

I*ngth (mm)

238 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drnnage.

Wet CreekGS #l) - (7/2s/9s) 0.6 km abovethe Forest boundarY RainbowTrout (n=34)

kngth (mm)

239 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(FS #la) - (7103196) 250 metersabove Coal Creek RainbowTrout (n={1)

50

45

40

35

!30

220

15

l0 t

I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=4)

450 Irngth (mm)

240 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Lifile Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(FS #1b)- (8118197) 115m belowprivate road near Hilts Creeh RainbowTrout (n=241

50

45

40

35

L30 2".

Z20 l5

-""' !d"'iob"'irb"'iob"' I*ngth (mm)

Bull Trout(n=45)

50

45

40

35

L30 9- n.

Z20

l5

l0

5

0 (mm)

241. Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(FS #2) - (817/95) 0.5 km aboveHilts Creek(top end of private proper$) RainbowTrout (n=10)

50

45

40

35

!30 =..

Z20 l5 l0

BullTrout (n=3)

50

45

40

35

L30 o

Z20

l5

l0

Length (mm)

242 Appendix B (continued).Longth frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek (FS #3) - (6/26/96) 0.8 km aboveHilts Creek(in meadow) RainbowTrout (n=15)

e z

I*ngth (mm)

Bull Trout(n=39)

50

45

40

35

!30 o ao<

220 l5

l0

5

Irngth (mm)

243 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(rS #3)- (8/719s) 0.8 km aboveHilts Creek(in meadow) RainbowTrout (n=9)

50

45

40

35

L30

220

l0

kngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=20)

50

45

40

35

!30 e

Z20

l0

5

I*ngth (nm)

244 AppendixB (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Litfle Lost River drunage.

Wet Creek(fS $a) - (6126196) 108meters above #3 (top end of meadow) RainbowTrout (n=4)

50

45

40

35

L30 =r<

220 t5

l0

450 I*ngth (mm)

BullTrout (n=7)

50

45

40

35

L30 o Iq<

220 l5

l0 )

kngth (nm)

245 Afpendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin tlte Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(unnamed tributtryr #1)- (9119195) 100 m aboveWet Creek

all fish capturedwere between 35 and 60 mm in length

t This tributary entersWet Creekfrom the oppositeside of Coal Creek 0.4 km below tlre confluenceof Wet Creekand Coal Creek. 246 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek(unnamed tribu taryr #2) - (7102197) 0.6 km aboveWet Creek RainbowTrout (n=21)

50

45

40

35

L30

220 l5

l0

5

450 I*ngth (nm)

t This tributary entersWet Creekfrom the oppositeside of Coal Creek0.4 kmbelow the confluenceof Wet Creekand Coal Creek. 247 Appendix B (continued).Length frequencydistribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

WilliamsCreek #l - (6121195) 7.6 km belowForest boundarY

onebull trout capturedapproximately 200 mm in length

248 Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Williams Creek#2 - (617/97) beaverpond at Forestboundary (hook and line sampling) BullTrout (n=7) Appendix B (continued).Length frequenry distribution of salmonidscaptured in sampling sitesin the Little Lost River drainage.

Williams Creek#3 - (6121195) 7.6km aboveForest boundary BullTrout (n=12)

kngth(mm)

250 APPENDIX C Anpendix C. Summaryof creel censusdata f?om the Little Lost River drainage(Adaptedfrom USRRfile datat:Corsi and Elle 1989;Gamett 1990a,I990b # Ander Hours SpeciesComposition (7o) Yeat Interviewed Fished Fish/ilour Wrb ILb Bk Bl A Streams Badger Creek 1977 6 t6 l.l USRRfile tlata 1976 12 9 0.9 100 USRRftle data 1968-70 2 5 3.6 to USRRfile data

58 42 USRRfile data Big Creek 1979 23 60 1.3 't t9'7'.7 33 70 1.1 1',| t6 USRRfile data 1974 10 50 .9 JI 63 USRRfile

Big SpringsCreek 1987 N/A 4.5 2.0 89 1l Corsi (1989) 1979 30 102 1.0 8 65 27 USRRfile data 1978 85 140 1.3 )) 423 USRRfile data 1977 97 190 1.0 87 12 I USRRfile rlata '14 t976 24 38 1.2 620 USRRfde data t974 68 169 .9 89 3',7 1 USRRfile

Deer Creek r976 t6 79 0.6 100 USRRfile tlata USRRfile data 1974 J 10 2.6 100

Dry Creek r979 18 60 1.3 100 USRRfile data r978 ll 27 1.8 l0 84 6 USRRftle data ,7, 197',7 L9 35 r.9 IO USRRfile data 1969 I 9.0 89 11 USRRfile data

a Little Lost River 1987 N/A 35 1.6 95 J Corsi (I989) c t977 44 80 2.3 95 J USRRfile data 1976 2I 84 0.5 89 5 USRRfile data t974 15 31.5 0.9 93 7 USRRfile data t9'11 23 84 1.3 97 I USRRfile date 1967-70 125 422 1.2 92 7 I USRRfile data

Sawmill Creek 1987 N/A 27.5 1.2 4l 6 53 Corsi (1989) t9'19 28 85 0.8 3 79 7 1l USRRfile data 1978 t4 32 1.3 75 5 5 15 USRRfile data USRRfile data 1977 2l 50 0.8 83 12 |,\5 r970 4 18 0.9 75 USRRfile data

Squaw Creek t976 6 ll 1.4 86 7 USRRfile data (Sawmill Canyon)

Summit Creek t987 6.5 2.8 83 Corsi (1989) t919 t7 1.3 23 USRRfile tlata L978 110 1.3 81 7 USRRfile data 1977 r04 1.8 9l USRR file data 1974 43 3.6 78 3 USRRfile data 1972 115 1.8 22 USRRfile data

252 Anoendix C (continued). Summaryof creel censusdata from the Little Lost River drainage(Adapted fromUSRRfile datal;---taqg!q CorsiandElle 1989;Gamett 1990a, l990bt Hours SpeoiesComposition (7o) -ftb year Interviewed Fished Fish/[Iour Htb lk Source wat€r a: : --E!--- :: - ::;::;: i Summit Creek(conl) 1967-70 75 313 1.4 9l 9

Lalies BigCreek Lake #1 1990 2l 80 1.94 5 95 Gamettl990a (beaver pond)

Shadowlake#2 1994 2 I 0.0 LRRDfile data (upper)

Swaugerl,ake#l 1994 39 140 0.16 100 LRRDfile data (upper)

Mill Creek t994 53.5 25 LRRDfde data

253 APPENDIX D Appendix D. Streamtemperature data collectedfrom various locationsin tlte Litfle Lost River dtainage.

Big Creek Immediately above Wet Creek

r996

30 25 20 15 10 5 0 07t01 08/01

1995

H$$$sseggHH$$Hpppppp$FFsssgggH$$H$$HHHg$$$3 &t€

255 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Litfle Lost River drainage.

Iron Creek 10 metersabove lron CreekRoad

r996

30

vG25 820

Erso

(l)3ro Fs 0' 07114 08/01 09/01 10t01 Date

256 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage,

Little Lost River Below Big Springs Creek

20 19 1a 17

15 5r,.

ft1 -10

I

B

6

D

4

st# rs loci ro ;;;-T--E. * | '1rur-i rs I aui ru I JUNE 1 .A.,LY AUG 1 SEPT 1 ocT 1

2J 22 21 20 19 18 1l 16 15 1+ 1J 12 o-"

EF9 H" -l

6 5

J Moy 14 | lule rs I rurvrs I srpt r I ocl r obr zo June 1 JULY 1 AUG 10 SEPT15 OCI 15

257 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locations in the Little Lost River drainage-

Little Lost River At Clyde

20 18 16 14 '12

oo 10 B ll. tt 6 4 2 0 MAY20r 15 15 15 15 r10 JUNE1 JUL1 AUG1 SEP1 OCT 1 DATE

1994

35

30

25

20

5r H,10 F 5

0

-5

-1 05/24 258 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage,

Little Lost River (Sawmill Creek) At old gauging site near Summit Creek

22 20 18 16 14 12 P10 v8 g6 .qa 2 0 -2 MAY20 I 15 JULY22 15 | 15 | 10 JUNE1 JULY 1 AUG 1 SEPT1 OCT1 DATES

1994

5.) R. F

259 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage,

Little Lost River (SawmillCreek) At old gauging site neur Summit Cteek (continued)

1988 -_24

26

24

22

20

18

oc) 1+ g H 12 10

B

6

-2 JUNEJ AI.JG1 I JUNE15 AUG11

2l 20 19 ,18

17 16 15 14 1J 12 ll 10 9

5J7

r,) F F -1

1 0 AUG11 i SEPT15 I OCT15 I SEPT1 ocT 1 OCI 27

260 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage.

Little Lost River (SawmillCreek) At ForestBoundary

4

.(J F F

| 15 | 10 SEPT1 OCT 1

L994

30

25

20

T F

' to

o

-5

-1 05124

26I Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage"

Little Lost River (SawmillCreek) At ForestBoundury @ontinued)

23 22 21 20 t9 1B 17 l6 t5 l4 8' l: \J tt e|. 11 .6 ro F9 B 7 6 5 + 3 '2 JUNEJ JULY 1 I AUGl I JULY15 AUG8 1987

-. 19 l8 '17

15 '14

1J 12 11 EJ ro

ga H

6 5 4 lllilill1 3 2 illlililttlnl I - AUG11 I srpirs I ocrrs I SEPT1 ocT 1 ocT 28

262 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage,

Little Lost River (SawmillCreek) Below Timber Creek

3fHF$EB3pFF3$FpF$FFFsss$HggHH$H$HSSHHHgHHH$fi $H

Littte Lost River (SawmillCreek) Below lron Creek

t99s

gg g gg gg g g g gg gg SESgSSSFF.FFSF*riFrr----aaaiS*gSgdabd;;55SSSSgs s $* s$ $ E s's $ $H H 3 Es H H HH s s s$ s s sHH$ s

263 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage.

Mill Creek At trailhead

1996

30 625 E ,OI = E o ru o- 1 E to o tr ryr'lt{l,.

:i07t14 08/01 09/01 10101 Date

264 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locations in the Litfle Lost River drainage.

SummitCreek At county line

20

1a

416 o-

E H 12 F! 10

a

6

+

2

io uavrs .rur.rirs ;ur-irs audrs srpi rs ro I | I I 'I loci J{JNE I '{JLY 1 AUG I SEPI' OCT 1 Wet Creek At Clyde

1994

24

22

20

l8

t6

1+ o(J 12

10 "frF B

6

+

2

o t+ I JU NE rs l.rur-iidauirr I sepirsl ocT 20 JUNE1 JULY 1 JULY 23 SEPT 1 ocT 1

265 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek At Deer CreekRoad crossing

20 19 1A 17

15 14

Flq

7 6 5 4 .l 2 1 0 . ury rg' | ;ur.rlrd | .rur-irs l AUG 15 I srpi rs locr to JUNE I JULY 1 AUG 1 SEPT 1 OCT 1

24

22

20

18

16

14

t2

^\J (/B

Ela tl

2

0 I JUNErs l luli rs l eui rs l srpirs I oq zo J UNE 1 JULY 1 AUG I SEPT1 OCT 1

266 Appendix D (continued).Stream temperature data collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainage.

Wet Creek At Forest Boundary

t996

30 25 20 15 10 5 0' 07to4 08/01 09/01 10101

Wet Creek 0.8 km aboveHilts Creek L996 30

25

20

15

10

5

0 07t01 08/01 09/01 10to1

267 APPENDIX E Appendix E. Streamand air temperaturedata collectedftom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997.

Mulkey Bar (air temperature) Near eonflueneeof Squfrwund Welereeks- *T -"1.. I maximum daily temperature 30f ttl U o ,0f H

L "lI c.) rot c) r- 5l o+ -5+ mininm daily tomperatwe -roI Jme July 1 August l September1 OctoberI November I Date

269 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drunagein L99'7. BadgerCreek At the Forestboundary

ooT rrI ,ot Q c) "t k 20t fi ''t t< (.) tot .-l q)- 't f- ot -5+ -l,;I June July I August I SoptemborI Octobor I NovemberI Date

BadgerCreek At the Little Lost/PahsimeroiRoad

40 35 30 U 25 {) k 20 4 }Y 15 6 10 a1 F o 5 0 -5 -10 JuneI July I August I SoptomborI October I Novomber I Date

270 Appendix E (continued). Streamand air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. BasinCreek 13.7m aboveWet Creek

40 35 30 r'\ r< v v 9t zo

I E15 ko O. ru a'1 F (ll|-) F 0 -5 -10 June I July August I September1 October I November I Date

Bear Creek 23.5 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 (,) 25 o H 20 d 15 l-r (l) l0 tr () 5 F 0

-10 JuneI July I AugustI SeptemberI October 1 Novomber I Date

27L Appendix E (continued). Streamand air temperatwedata collected from various locationsin the Litfle Lost River drainagein 1997. Big Creek 91 m belowBig CreekPond (4 km aboveForest boundary)

1'T "' ,olI O ,

Big Creek At the Forest/privateboundarY

40 35 30 O 25 o) |< 20 € 15 l

-10 June1 July 1 August I SeptemberI October I November 1 Date

272 Appendix B (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. Big Creek At Wet CreekRoad

ooT ,rf 'ot

r\v v c) "l k ,or t +a !9 trT (D -^. toI tr 'J fr OT -5t

June

Big SpringsCreek At BlM/private boundarynear source

40 35 30 O 25 o li 20 € 15 ok 10

F () 5 0 -) -10 June I July 1 AugustI SeptemberI OctoberI November I Date

273 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1991.

Big SpringsCreek 300 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 O 25 O li 20 +a l5 F( 0) t_3 l0 F -(I) -J F 0 -5 -10 June I July I August I SeptemberI October I NovemberI Date

CoalCreek 5 m aboveWet Creek

40 35 30 O 25 o F{ 20 +i 15 li (D 10 (-"! F (l) 5 fd 0 -5 -10 June I July AugustI SoptemberI October I Novembor I Date

274 locationsin the Little Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collected from various Lost River drunagein 1997.

DeerCreek 300m belowconfluence of Southand North forks

40 35 30 U 25 c) li 20 +a l5 t< c) t0 tr o Lr 0

-10 June I July I August I SeptemberI October 1 NovemborI Date

DeerCreek At BlM/privsteboundary

40 35 30 O 25 0) nh li € 15 ! (I) 10

(l) 5 ,4 0

-10 June1 July 1 August 1 September1 Ootober I November I Date

275 the Little Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin LostRiver drainagein 1997. Dry Creek At Forestboundary

40 35 30 a) 2s !2 20 Hls H 8. to a- cir- ) l-.r 0

-10 June I July I AugustI SoptemberI October I November I Date

Fallert SpringsCreek 200 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 O 25 o Li 20 +a l5 k (I) l0

F.l (l) 5 F 0

-10 June I July 1 August I SeptemberI Octobor I November1 Date

276 various locationsin the Little Appendix E (continued).stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom Lost River drunage in 1997. Iron Creek 18 m sboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 U 25 o li 20 a l5 o)tr 10 t1. (D- 5 lJ 0

-10 June I July 1 August 1 September1 October 1 November I Date

Little Lost River Approximately 2 km aboveSmithie Fork

40 35 30 O 25 o l-< 20 1 - 15 l-4 o) 10 F c) 5 F 0

-10 JuneI July I August I SeptemborI October I NovomberI Date

277 in the Little Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locations Lost River drainagein L997. Little Lost River ApproximatelyI km aboveTimber Creek(at Timber Creek Road)

40 35 30

r)v r< 9zo tsr{ }Y _nl *_"xro a-l otr F 0 -5 -10 June I July I August I SeptomberI October 1 November I Date

Little Lost River Approximotely 500 m below Timber Creek

40 35 30 (J ,<

(l) li 20 -. 15 (DL l0 H 6 5 0 -5 -10 June I July 1 August I SoptomberI Ootober 1 NovomborI Date

278 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin tlte Little Lost River drainagein 1997. Little Lost River At Bull CreekRoad bridge

40 35 30 r\ 25 c) ! 20 P l5 ok 10 a-t (D- fJ 0 -5 -10 June I July I August I September1 October 1 Novomber I Date

Little Lost River BetweenMill and Squaw ueeks

40 35 30 O 25 (D tr 20 € l5 lr 0) l0 r C) 5 0

-10 June I July I AugustI SeptemberI OotoborI NovemberI Date

279 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. Little Lost River At the Sawmill Road bridge (Forestboundary)

40 35 This hobo was out oflhe water for an unknown period of timo betwoonJuly 30 14 andapproximately Septonber l. 25 20 15 10

0 -5 -10 June I July I August I SeptemberI October I November I Date

Little Lost River Approximately I km aboveSummit Creek

40 35 30 U 25 C) li 20 € l5 l<() 10 -. () F 0 -5 -10 June I July I August I SeptemborI October1 November I Date

280 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. Little Lost River Approximately I km above Wet Creek

40 35 30 (J a< c.) H 20 € l5 !c) l0 - O 5 fr 0

-l 0 June I July I AugustI SeptemberI October I Novembor I Date

Little Lost River Approximately 5 km below Badger Creek (at Buck and Bird Road bridge)

40 35 30 U 25 o H 20 # d 15 g o) * 10 F o 5 0

-10 JuneI July I AugustI SeptomborI October I NovemberI Date

28L Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drunagein L997. Little Lost River Approximately 2 km below Big Springs Creek (at Cedanille CanyonRoad bridge)

40 35 30 r \ r< v !a 20 H15 (D.^fi Q. lu (D) F 0

-10 June I July I August I SeptemberI OctoberI NovemberI Date

Mill Creek 100 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 O 25

Q) ! 20 € k O l0 - F o 5 0

-10 JuneI July 1 August I SeptemberI October I NovemberI Date

282 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperanrredata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. SmithieFork Approximately 100 m aboveLittle Lost River

aoT ,tt 30+ Crtl E,l =l E trt

.q':0+I _,+ -roI Junet August I SeptemberI October1 Novembor I Date

SummerhouseCreek At Forest boundary

40 35 30 25 o) li 20 +i 15 ok 10 d 0) 5 F 0

-10 June I July 1 August1 September1 OotoborI NovemberI Date

/.63 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. SummitCreek 200 m belowconfluence of Iron Springs

35 The Hobo beganfloating at sometimeafter approximatelyJuly 15. The data appearsto havebeen 30 affectedafter about SeptomberI which suggeststhis is C) 25 the time that the Hobo beganfloating. () tr 20 € 15 oti l0

0 -5 -10 JuneI July I August I SoPtemberI October 1 November 1 Date

SummitCreek At BlM/private boundaryapproximately 1 km belowSawmill CanyonRoad

40 35 30 U 25 o r< 20 +a 15 ! O 10 E o 5 0 -5 -10 JuneI July I August I SeptemberI October I November 1 Date

284 Appendix E (continued).Sffeam and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little LostRiver drainagein L997. SummitCreek Approximately I km aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 o25 9i 20 1 Els oL{ Q. ru 65 F

SoptemberI NovemberI

SquawCreek (Sawmill Creek) 10 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 U 25 (l) H 20 15 li o 10 () 5 F 0

-10 June I July I August I September1 OctoberI November I Date

285 Appendix E (continued).Stream andair temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little LostRiver drainagein 1997. SquawCreek (Wet Creek) 17 m aboveWet Creek

40 35 30 r \ r<

!2 20

dl) tr 8. to a -o ) F 0 -5 -10 r June 1 July I AugustI SePtemberI OcfoberI NovemborI Date

Timber Creek Approximately200 m aboveLittle Lost River

40 35 30 O 25 C) H 20 -a-l 15 ()t-r l0 6 F C) 5 0 -5 -10 June I July 1 AugustI SeptemberI OctoberI November I Date

286 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Litfle Lost River drainagein 1997. Wet Creek Approximately 0.8 km aboveHilts Creek (ut old diversion)

40 35 30 O 25 o lr 20 L 15 ot< t0

F o 0

-10 June I July I August I SeptemberI October I November I Date

Wet Creek Approximately 500 m aboveCoal Creek (at F or est/private b oundary)

40 35 30 (.) 25 (I) t-r 20

d l5 l-r (l) 10

(l) 5 0 -5 -10 June 1 July I AugustI SeptemberI October I NovemberI Date

287 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Litfle Lost River drainagein 1997. Wet Creek At the Forest boundary (approximutely300 m aboveBig Creek)

40 35 30 () 25 () r< +a l5 Lr C) 10

0 -5 -10 June 1 July I AugustI SeptomberI OctoberI Novembor I Date

Wet Creek At Deer CreekRoad crossing

40 35 30 (.) 25 o *i 20 -- l5 Lr() 10 c) Lr 0 -5 -10 June I July I August1 SeptemberI OctoborI November I Date

288 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drunagein 1997. Wet Creek Approximately50 m uboveDry Creekhydroelectric inflow (approximately 6 km above Wet Creek)

40 35 30 O 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 June I July I AugustI SeptemberI October I NovemberI Date

Wet Creek At Little Lost/PahsimeroiRoad

40 35 30 O 25 o l< 20 .i-f l5 ! O 10

(D ) Lr 0

-10 JuneI July I AugustI SeptemberI OctoberI November I Date

289 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collected from various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. Wet Creekounnamed tributary approximately 500m belowCoal Creek 13.5m aboveWet Creek

40 35 30 () 25

(!) tr 20 +a l5 ok t0

F o) 5 F 0 -5 -10 JuneI August I September1 October I November I Date

WilliamsCreek Approximately 7.6 km sbovethe Forest boundary

40 35 30 25 () |< 20 € 15 k O r.+{ 10

0) 5 F 0 -5 -10 JuneI July I August I SeptemberL Octobor 1 NovemberI Date

290 Appendix E (continued).Stream and air temperaturedata collectedfrom various locationsin the Little Lost River drainagein 1997. WilliamsCreek Approximately 3 km belowForest boundary (at uppermostdiversion)

ooT .'f15r Q ,'I o l< ,ot E l-i (I) tot"t - () -lsA F 'l -\+ ,;I June I July I AugustI SeptemberI October I November I Date

297 APPENDIX F AppendixF. Selectedstream habitat parametersdetermined by the Forest ServiceRliR4 Fish and Fish Habitat lnventoryProcedures (Overton et al. 1997).

Map Mean MeanMax. Width/ L Undercut Surface (m) (m) (%) Stream/Reach Gradient Width Deoth Deoth 100 Bank Fines Comments BadgerCreek

Privateboundary near Little [,ost Road to 97 8837 4.5 2.1 0.5 t5.7 0.q 7l 69 t2 2 Forestboundary (BLM section)

F.S.boundary to l)untingCrcek 97 2569 4.2 2.5 0.6 15.7 0.6 65 64 l3 I

BuntingCreek to sourcespring 97 t637 5.9 t.6 0.4 9.0 2.3 86 72 5T 6

BasinCreek - Wet Creekto PineCreek 97 2473 4.4 0.9 0.5 24.3 0.q 73 25 68 I

BearCreek- Little L.R. upstream1,593 m 94 I s93 ).) 3.8 0.5 19.5 t.l 97 5 44 44 l Big Creek

't459 ta A Wet Cr. upstream7J59 m (BeaverPond) 94 3.6 2.0 0.5 11.2 1.0 100 32

N) \o BeaverPond to sourcesprings 94 453 4.0 23.6 t.3 12.9 0.2 98 8 9 62 reachincluded beaverpond

CampCr. - TimberCr. upstream2,299 m 97 2299 8.1 t.7 0.4 25.0 5.2 7l t4 t7 I

DeerCreek

Privateboundary to Forestboundary 97 7403 2;1 1.3 9.0 0.4 87 (BLM section)

Forestboundary to confluenceofforks 97 t 80l 4.1 1.5 0.4 16.3 2.1 5l

DeerCreek, South Fork - entire reach 97 937 5.5 t.2 0.2 17.0 2.1 90 29 58 J

Dry Creek 't.2 Hydroelectricdiversion to long Lost Cr. 97 1.6 5.9 30.0 0.7 26

Iong lnst Creek to Forestboundary 97 1.6 5.4 1.0 29.7 50

Forestboundary upstream2,623 m (to the 97 )A 4.0 1.0 16.5 45 AppendixF. Continued.

Mean Mean Max. Undercut Surface (% Stream/Reach Widrh0 Bank Fines Comments Dry Creek,unnamed tributary aboveForest boundary

Dry Creek to sourcesPring 97 r028 5.1 2.1 0.5 I8.8 0]0 85 17 l2 3 burnedin 1988 FireboxCr. - Little L.R. upstream2,406 m 94 2406 7.4 1.7 0.4 n.4 l l.3 100 38 5 't)4 Hawley Creek - lron Cr. upstream2,446 m 97 2446 9.3 1.6 0.3 16.6 89 57 3l 7

Iron Creek

Little lost River to JacksonCreek 94 rl5l 3.0 2.3 0.4 17.5 t:7 63 t4

JacksonCreek to "Right Fork" Iron Creek 94 2340 4.5 1.7 0.4 l6.l 613 88 l3 2l t\) \o r Iron Creek,"lrft Fork"

Iron Creek upstream2,439 m 2439 I t.6 2.4 0.5 20.6 5i5 80 76 l0

IronCreek, "Right Fork"

Iron Creek upstreaml,0zl4 m 97 lM4 t.7 0.4 26.0 s!9 t4

JacksonCreek

Iron Creekupstream 3,806 m 3806 14.9 1.7 0-5 ts.2 6,.2

Little lost River

Bride on Sawmill Canl'ronRoad below 22s0 2.6 6.1 16.2 0,.4 9l 22 ll Forestboundary upstream to Pdvate boundary 39 Privateboundary near SquawCreek to 94 5261 1.4 0.8 21.3 q.8 90 l5 9 private boundarynear Bull Creek I l0 25 Privateboundary near Iron Creek to 94 2267 1.9 5.9 0.6 )o 89 l8 Timber Creek l0 l8 upperportron Timber Creek to Smithie Fork 94 4678 2.4 4.1 0.6 t7.5 7,.0 95 bumedin 1988

5l l0 l9 bumedin 1988 SmithieFork to FireboxCreek 94 3.6 2.2 0.4 t2.3 l3.r 99 76 53 t7 l7 burnedin 1988 FireboxCreek to unnamed 97 t2.o 1.9 0.8 t2.4 I 1.7 AppendixF. Continued.

Map Mean MeanMax. Width/ Bank Undercul Surface Stream/Reach Cradient Width m Stabilit Bank Fines Pools Little l-ost River (continued)

Unnambedtributary to headwaters bumedin 1988

Little lrst River,"Right Fork"

Little lost River to headwaters 97 t6t4 l t.0 t.5 0.4 19.3 310 87 4l 6 2 burnedin 1988

North Creek* diversionto headwaters 97 30s2 9.6 1.3 0.6 t4.4 019 8l 29 48 I

Meadow Creek - Little L. R. to headwaters 97 4937 10.0 o.7 0.3 10.2 I r0 66 )t 50 I lower portion appears intermittent N) \o lJl Mill Creek

Little l.ost River upstream3824 m 94 3824 7.0 3.2 0.4 18.5 4t9 94 3 t6 l0

0.4 24.4 7lo 76 l6 8 QuigleyCr. - Little L. R. upstream4l I m 97 4ll 2.0 t.3

al RedrockCreek - fimber Creek to forks 97 677 2.5 z-l 0.5 26.4 l0.l t) l3 65 5 I SlideCreek - TimberCr. upstream965 m 97 96s 9.6 2.2 0.4 23.1 8t3 94 l5 2l 6

SmithieFork

Little Lost River upstreamI,203 m 94 t203 3.5 3.0 0.s 15.3 7le 94 25 l4 48 bumedin [988 in 1988 Endofprior sectionupstream 3,238 m 94 3238 3.6 2.4 0.5 t2.7 4.9 99 43 ll 50 burned in 1988 Endofprior sectionto Right Fork 94 2t49 4.O t.) 0.4 12.6 ?e 98 37 t2 23 burned

SmithieFork, "Right Fork"

A1 5 bumedin 1988 SmithieFork upstream488 m 9.0 l.t 0.3 I 1.5 4.8 79 l7

Smithie Fork, "West Fork" 3 bumedin 1988 SmithieFork upstream959 m lt.2 0.4 59 3l

Map MeanMax. Widrh/ LW Undercut Surface Gradient 100 Bank Fines Pools Comments SquawCreek - Sawmill CanYon 82 25 35 22 Little Inst River to Road#l0l 94 609 t.4 2.0 0.s 9.2 0.51 99 t3 l0 5 Road#tOl upstream2J46m 94 2446 2.1 1.8 0.4 9.1 4.4

99 l4 7 Endofprior sectionupstream 1,292m 94 1292 3.8 t.7 0.4 8.2 4.5 13.2 86 57 22 South Fork SquawCt. upstream2'143 m 97 2143 9.2 1.4 0.4 4'4t

Squaw,North Fork 94 l5 48 SquawCreek uPstream 2,013 m 20t3 2.9 0.4 34.2 4.9 *South SquawCreek, Fork" 100 t4 55 t\) Creek uPstream500 m 97 500 2.8 t.3 0.4 9.8 5.q \o Squaw o\ SummitCreek

47.7 87 53 32 5t PahsinreroiRoad upstream2,195 m 95 2195 0.6 5.3 0.5 0.6

Timber Creek 85 4 l0 33 Little lost Riverto RetlrockCreek 94 2949 2.5 2.6 0.5 l5.9 4.3 82 6 l2 26 RedrockCreek to Slide Creek 94 3279 2.O 2.1 0.4 t 5.8 12.2

1A 20.2 92 l7 Slide Creekto sourcesPrings 97 1228 2.0 0.4 7.4

UncleIke Creek *Left 83 46 40 I Diversion dam to ForK' 97 3454 10.0 2.2 0.6 16.3 0.6 13.0 0.7 82 30 33

Wet Creek

17.2 0.0 82 6I 28 22 BasinCreek to Big Creek 97 2t23 2.8 4.2 1.0

8.5 0.7 t4.8 t.2 45 47 32 AppendixF. Continued.

Map Mean MeanMax. Width/ Undercut Surface Fines Pools Comments Stream/Reach Gradient Widrh Bank Wet Creek (continued) 28 l6 reachis not Prirate section above Coal Creek 97 2332 3.0 0.7 83 grazedand includesbeaver ponds

ll 23 2 Prirateboundary to old diversion 97 185 4.2 2;l 0.7 12.9 70 39 Old diversionupstream 673 m (to the 96 673 2.7 2.3 0.5 r 5.6 60 25 52 lalls)

Wet Creek,unnamed tribulary near Coal Creek 34 66 I WetCreek upstream |,550 m 97 r 550 0.e 0.3

N) \o \t Williams Creek 4 l,ower diversion to upperdiversion 97 1235 0.8 0.4 86 66 2l 57 26 4 Upper diversionto Forestboundary 97 l 869 t.4 0.4 69 55 l8 2 Forestboundary to sourcesPrings 97 2497 2.0 0.4 69