Evaluation of Historical Sediment Deposition 



also may have contributed to increased sedi- 

 ment deposition in the lake. Unfortunately, I 

 have found no comprehensive early logging 

 records which allow estimation of land areas or 

 timber volumes involved in the Whitefish Lake 

 basin. 



The lake sedimentation rate declined fol- 

 lowing construction of the railroad. Neverthe- 

 less, the deposition rate from 1902 to 1908 was 

 62 mg/cmVyr, which is 3 times higher than 

 background levels. Following completion of 

 the railroad along the lakeshore, timber harvest 

 was the primary human land disturbance activ- 

 ity in the Whitefish Lake watershed. Logging 

 demand was fueled by the need for railroad ties 

 as well as building materials for the new town of 

 Whitefish (then called Stumptown), established 

 in 1904. The Whitefish townsite, established in 

 1904, was located along the Whitefish River 

 below the lake outlet. Thus clearance of land for 

 the townsite did not likely contribute additional 

 sediments to Whitefish Lake. A small sluice 

 dam was operated at the outlet of Whitefish 

 Lake for 10-15 years during this period, and 

 lake level fluctuations associated with this dam 

 may have increased shoreline erosion around 

 the lake in the early 1900s.. 



During the early 1900s, logging activity in 

 the watershed was limited to the immediately 

 vicinity of Whitefish Lake and the adjacent 

 railroad line. Little logging apparently occurred 

 in upstream drainages since Swift Creek and 

 other tributaries to Whitefish Lake were not 

 suitable for carrying logs. Logging above 

 Whitefish Lake in those days consisted of selec- 

 tive cutting of the larger trees in the immediate 

 vicinity of Whitefish Lake, which were pulled 

 to the lake using horses, and then floated (or 

 skidded across the ice) to the sawmills (Schaf- 

 fer and Engelter 1973). By 1904-1905, there 

 were several sawmills in the area including the 

 one on Whitefish Lake near the outlet, one 

 downstream on the Whitefish River, and sev- 



eral others farther downstream on the Stillwater 

 and Flathead Rivers. Logging camps sprung up 

 around Whitefish Lake, and along the White- 

 fish River below the Lake. 



The lake sedimentation rate increased to 88 

 mg/cmVyrfrom 1908 and 1912. In addition to 

 human land disturbance described above, the 

 1910 fires may have contributed to this in- 

 crease. 



The sedimentation rate declined to 29 mg/ 

 cmVyr from 1912 to 1922. This decrease corre- 

 lates with a decline in land disturbance activity 

 in the watershed. Desirable timber around the 

 lake apparently was depleted by earlier logging 

 activities, and logging efforts shifted to other 

 areas of the Flathead Basin. 



1929-Present . There was a large increase in 

 sedimentation in Whitefish Lake for a short 

 time period in the early 1930s (Figure B-1). 

 Sedimentation levels increased 10-fold over 

 background, reaching levels up to 212 mg/cmV 

 yr. This large peak corresponds with extensive 

 logging activities which commenced in 1929 in 

 the Lazy Creek and Lower Swift Creek drain- 

 ages above the head of Whitefish Lake. Most of 

 this acreage was located on private lands owned 

 by the Glacier Park Timber Company (which 

 was subsequently incorporated into the Burling- 

 ton Northern Company and then split off into 

 Plum Creek Timber Company). 



A railroad spur was constructed from the 

 head of Whitefish Lake up the Lazy Creek 

 drainage during this time period. Trees were 

 cut, pulled to the rail line using horses, and 

 transported to the mills via railcar. The Lazy 

 Creek railspur was operated for three years, and 

 then removed in 1932 (D. Klehm, pers. comm.). 

 Thereafter, logs were hauled out of the Lazy 

 and Swift Creek drainages by truck. Logging 

 roads and skid trails were constructed through- 

 out the areas being logged. During this period, 

 there apparently was little concern about water 

 quality impacts, and few, if any, regulations 



Flathead Basin Cooperative Program Final Report 



Page 25 



