ROAD SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT & MODELING: KOOTENAI-FISHER TMDL PLANNING AREA ROAD GIS LAYERS & SUMMARY STATISTICS

Similar documents
ROAD SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT & MODELING

Designing a Dam for Blockhouse Ranch. Haley Born

GRAPEVINE LAKE MODELING & WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS

Analysis of Road Sediment Accumulation to Monumental Creek using the GRAIP Method

Chapter 6. Fundamentals of GIS-Based Data Analysis for Decision Support. Table 6.1. Spatial Data Transformations by Geospatial Data Types

DRAFT WATERSHED STRATIFICATION METHODOLOGY FOR TMDL SEDIMENT AND HABITAT INVESTIGATIONS

Huron Creek Watershed 2005 Land Use Map

Exercise 2: Working with Vector Data in ArcGIS 9.3

A GIS-based Approach to Watershed Analysis in Texas Author: Allison Guettner

Improvement of the National Hydrography Dataset for Parts of the Lower Colorado Region and Additional Areas of Importance to the DLCC

Wetlands and Riparian Mapping Framework Technical Meeting

GISHydro2000: A Tool for Automated Hydrologic Analysis in Maryland. G. E. Moglen 1

Section 4: Model Development and Application

Hannah Moore CEE Juvenile Bull Trout Distribution in the South Fork Walla Walla River, Oregon

Using ArcGIS for Hydrology and Watershed Analysis:

Summary Description Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage Coastal Resource Atlas Project

NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET (NHD) UPDATE PROJECT FOR US FOREST SERVICE REGION 3

Development of a GIS Interface for WEPP Model Application to Great Lakes Forested Watersheds

Outcrop suitability analysis of blueschists within the Dry Lakes region of the Condrey Mountain Window, North-central Klamaths, Northern California

Development and Land Use Change in the Central Potomac River Watershed. Rebecca Posa. GIS for Water Resources, Fall 2014 University of Texas

Preparing a NFIE-Geo Database for Travis County

National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Update Project for US Forest Service Region 3

ISU GIS CENTER S ARCSDE USER'S GUIDE AND DATA CATALOG

Exercise 2: Working with Vector Data in ArcGIS 9.3

Improvement of the National Hydrography Dataset for US Forest Service Region 3 in Cooperation with the National Forest Service

Atlas of the Upper Gila River Watershed

Title: ArcMap: Calculating Soil Areas for Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans Authors: Brandy Woodcock, Benjamin Byars

NWT Open Report Delineation of Watersheds in the Mackenzie Mountains

Streamflow, Sediment, and Nutrient Simulation of the Bitterroot Watershed using SWAT

A DATABASE TO FACILITATE REMOVAL OF SQUAW GEOGRAPHIC PLACE NAMES IN OREGON

George Host and Tom Hollenhorst Natural Resources Research Institute University of Minnesota Duluth

PREDICTING BACKGROUND AND RISK-BASED SEDIMENTATION FOR FOREST WATERSHED TMDLS

Watershed concepts for community environmental planning

CAUSES FOR CHANGE IN STREAM-CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY

Harrison 1. Identifying Wetlands by GIS Software Submitted July 30, ,470 words By Catherine Harrison University of Virginia

Urbanization factors in the Gilleland Creek watershed, Travis County, Texas. Michael Kanarek GEO386G Final Project Dec. 2, 2011

This Powerpoint presentation summarizes the use of NetMap for a Fire Decision Support System. Created on Sept 25, 2015 by Dr. Lee Benda and Kevin

Delineation of Watersheds

USGS Hydrography Overview. May 9, 2018

software, just as word processors or databases are. GIS was originally developed and cartographic capabilities have been augmented by analysis tools.

Protocol for Prioritizing Conservation Opportunity Areas in Centre County and Clinton County


Rick Faber CE 513 Watershed and Streamwork Delineation Lab # 3 4/24/2006

A Comprehensive Inventory of the Number of Modified Stream Channels in the State of Minnesota. Data, Information and Knowledge Management.

Welcome to NetMap Portal Tutorial

Louisiana Transportation Engineering Conference. Monday, February 12, 2007

Project Primary Contact: Gregg Servheen, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, PO Box 25 Boise, ID ,

Natalie Cabrera GSP 370 Assignment 5.5 March 1, 2018

Kootenai River Habitat Restoration Program Update

BRIEFING BOOK. Natural Gas Energy Parcel Level GIS

StreamStats: Delivering Streamflow Information to the Public. By Kernell Ries

Overview. Project Background Project Approach: Content and Application Development Application Demonstration Future Developments

Salt River & Mark Twain Lake Structures Inventory & Inundation Study Project Report

Development of Improved Stream Mapping for NC

GIS in Water Resources Midterm Exam Fall 2016 There are four questions on this exam. Please do all four. They are not all of equal weight.

What s New in Topographic Information - USGS National Map

Introduction to Geographic Information Systems

Little Blackfoot TPA 2009 Sediment and Habitat Assessment QAQC Review March 9, 2010

A Simple Drainage Enforcement Procedure for Estimating Catchment Area Using DEM Data

Steve Pye LA /22/16 Final Report: Determining regional locations of reference sites based on slope and soil type. Client: Sonoma Land Trust

Lagunitas Creek Stewardship Plan. Marin Municipal Water District

A Comparison of Manual and Computer-Assisted Drainage Delineation Methods for Hydrologic-Unit Map Development

A GIS Tool to Analyze Forest Road Sediment Production and Stream Impacts

Volcanic Hazards of Mt Shasta

Great Lakes Online Watershed Interface W. Elliot, Research Engineer USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, ID March, 2016

CR AAO Bridge. Dead River Flood & Natural Channel Design. Mitch Koetje Water Resources Division UP District

Watershed Analysis of the Blue Ridge Mountains in Northwestern Virginia

Welcome to NR502 GIS Applications in Natural Resources. You can take this course for 1 or 2 credits. There is also an option for 3 credits.

LOMR SUBMITTAL LOWER NEHALEM RIVER TILLAMOOK COUNTY, OREGON

GIS in Water Resources Midterm Exam Fall 2012 There are five questions on this exam. Please do all five.

4. GIS Implementation of the TxDOT Hydrology Extensions

Hydrography Webinar Series

LOCATING DITCH RELIEF CULVERTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT DELIVERY TO STREAMS - AN INTERACTIVE DESIGN TOOL

Introducing Iowa StreamStats Version 4, a Redesign of the USGS Application for Estimating Streamflow Stats

Oklahoma GIS for GeoCIP

Wetland Mapping & Functional Assessment Canadian River Watershed New Mexico. Association of State Wetland Managers

Groundwater-Surface Water Interactions along the Hangman, California, and Rock Creeks, September 30, 2009

Black Gore Creek 2013 Sediment Source Monitoring and TMDL Sediment Budget

2. PHYSICAL SETTING FINAL GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN. 2.1 Topography. 2.2 Climate

Date of Report: EPA agreement number: Center Name and Institution of Ctr. Director: Identifier used by Center for Project: Title of Project:

Denis White NSI Technical Services Corporation 200 SW 35th St. Corvallis, Oregon 97333

Objectives: After completing this assignment, you should be able to:

Delineation of high landslide risk areas as a result of land cover, slope, and geology in San Mateo County, California

Lecture 3. Data Sources for GIS in Water Resources

A Post Processing Tool to Assess Sediment and Nutrient Source Allocations from SWAT Simulations

Multiple Representations of Geospatial Data: A Cartographic Search for the Holy Grail?

A New Class of Spatial Statistical Model for Data on Stream Networks: Overview and Applications

Why Geomorphology for Fish Passage

GIS for ChEs Introduction to Geographic Information Systems

Comment Response Document Regarding the Total Maximum Daily Load of Sediment in the Lower Gunpowder Falls Watershed, Baltimore County, Maryland

Urban Erosion Potential Risk Mapping with GIS

Georelational Vector Data Model

High Speed / Commuter Rail Suitability Analysis For Central And Southern Arizona

Web-based Tools for Complex Spatial Data. Bill Daigle Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks

The National Hydrography Dataset in the Pacific Region. U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey

Flood Hazard Zone Modeling for Regulation Development

PRINCIPLES OF GIS. 1 Low

PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING DISTRICT 3-0

Hydrology and Watershed Analysis

CENTRAL TEXAS HILL COUNTRY FLOOD

Transcription:

ROAD SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT & MODELING: KOOTENAI-FISHER TMDL PLANNING AREA ROAD GIS LAYERS & SUMMARY STATISTICS Prepared by: ATKINS Water Resources Group 820 North Montana Avenue Helena, MT 59601 November 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents... i List of Tables... ii List of Figures... ii Attachments... ii 1.0 Introduction... 1 2.0 GIS Road Sediment Assessment Summary... 1 2.1 Land Ownership... 1 2.2 Road Layers... 1 2.3 Stream and Watershed Layers... 2 2.4 Landscape Layers... 5 2.5 Road Crossings... 5 2.6 Parallel Road Segments... 6 3.0 Sampling and Analysis Plan... 7 4.0 References... 10 November 2011 i

LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Waterbody segments that will be addressed during the road assessment.... 1 Table 2. Road surface type attributes.... 2 Table 3. Subwatersheds for sediment listed stream segments in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA.... 3 Table 4. Number of road crossings per Level IV ecoregion in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA... 5 Table 5. Number of road crossings per land ownership in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA... 6 Table 6. Length of parallel road segments per Level IV ecoregion in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA.... 6 Table 7. Length of parallel road segments per land ownership in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA... 6 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Subwatersheds in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA.... 4 Figure 2. Road crossings in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA.... 8 Figure 3. Road segments parallel to streams in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA.... 9 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A Road Summary Statistics November 2011 ii

1.0 INTRODUCTION An assessment of the road network within the Kootenai-Fisher TMDL Planning Area (TPA) will be performed as part of the development of sediment TMDLs for 303(d) listed stream segments with sediment as a documented impairment. This report details the various GIS layers and existing datasets used in the road assessment, as well as road summary statistics throughout the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. This assessment will be used to support sediment source modeling using the USDA Agricultural Research Service s WEPP model. The Kootenai-Fisher TPA encompasses an area of approximately 2,511 square miles in Lincoln and Flathead counties in northwestern Montana. The Kootenai-Fisher TPA includes both the Kootenai TPA (1,667 square miles) and the Fisher TPA (844 square miles). The Kootenai TPA encompasses the majority of the Upper Kootenai River HUC8 (17010104), while the Fisher TPA aligns with the Fisher River HUC8 (17010101). Within the Kootenai-Fisher TPA, there are six water body segments listed on the 2010 303(d) List for sediment-related impairments (Table 1). Bristow Creek, Libby Creek, Lake Creek and Quartz Creek are listed as impaired due to sediment in the Kootenai TPA, while Wolf Creek and Raven Creek are listed as impaired due to sediment in the Fisher TPA. Table 1. Waterbody segments that will be addressed during the road assessment. TPA List ID Waterbody Description Kootenai/Fisher MT76C001_020 WOLF CREEK, headwaters to mouth (Fisher River) Kootenai/Fisher MT76C001_030 RAVEN CREEK, headwaters to mouth (Pleasant Valley Fisher River) Kootenai/Fisher MT76D002_110 BRISTOW CREEK, the headwaters to mouth at Lake Koocanusa Kootenai/Fisher MT76D002_062 LIBBY CREEK, from the highway 2 bridge to mouth (Kootenai River) Kootenai/Fisher MT76D002_070 LAKE CREEK, Bull Lake outlet to mouth (Kootenai River) Kootenai/Fisher MT76D002_090 QUARTZ CREEK, headwaters to confluence with the Kootenai River 2.0 GIS ROAD SEDIMENT ASSESSMENT SUMMARY This section provides a description of the various GIS layers and sources for data that were used in the road sediment assessment study. 2.1 LAND OWNERSHIP Data on land ownership was obtained from NRIS, which maps public land ownership at a scale of 1:100,000. Ownership was divided into seven categories: US Forest Service, US Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Montana State Trust Lands, Private, and Unknown, though no roads intersected US Bureau of Land Management or US Fish and Wildlife Service managed lands in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. 2.2 ROAD LAYERS The roads layer is primarily derived from the Travel Routes for Region 1 geodatabase developed by the US Forest Service and available from the Northern Region Geospatial Library (http://www.fs.fed.us/r1/gis/), supplemented with the Lincoln County Roads dataset. The State of Montana Base Map Service Center Transportation Framework Theme was initially considered, but was November 2011 1

not utilized since the data are not uniform and road surface type information is commonly lacking. The US Forest Service Travel Routes for Region 1 database contains a significant amount of road surface type information, and was found to be just as complete of an inventory of road locations, particularly in areas with a mix of federally and privately managed lands. Road data in the US Forest Service Travel Routes for Region 1 database was sometimes lacking in areas of urban and rural residential development. When this was the case, specific roads were selected from the Lincoln County roads dataset, which also contained road surface type information, and merged with the US Forest Service data to build a complete dataset. Road surface types were assigned a DEQ Class of 1, 2, 3, or 4 based on surface type attribute information contained in the various road datasets as presented in Table 2. Table 2. Road surface type attributes. DEQ Class DEQ Class Description Road Database Attributes 1 Paved Paved, Asphalt, Bituminous Surface Treatment, Paved/NonHighway 2 Gravel Crushed Aggregate or Gravel, Gravel, Graded, Bladed 3 Native Native Material 4 Unknown assigned when surface type information lacking 2.3 STREAM AND WATERSHED LAYERS Stream layers were developed using the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) 1:24,000 high-resolution flowline layer. Flowlines were limited to streams/rivers and artificial paths; ditches and pipelines were not included. Artificial paths are required as larger waterbodies are digitized as polygons (waterbody areas), and the NHD flowline layer uses an artificial path to connect flowlines through these areas. Watersheds were delineated on the basis of the USGS 6 th Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC12) layer and modified where necessary to delineate the subwatersheds of interest (Table 3 and Figure 1). Delineated subwatersheds include the Upper Lake Creek HUC12, which was split into areas draining upstream (above) and downstream (below) the Bull Lake outlet, along with the Raven Creek subwatershed, which was created using the Delineate Watershed tool in GIS and a 30-meter DEM. November 2011 2

Table 2. Subwatersheds for sediment listed stream segments in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. Hu_10_Name Hu_12_Name Subwatershed_ID Bristow Creek-Rainy Creek Bristow Creek Bristow Creek Flower Creek-Quartz Creek Quartz Creek Quartz Creek Keeler Creek Keeler Creek Lower Lake Creek Lower Lake Creek Lake Creek Ross Creek Ross Creek Stanley Creek Stanley Creek Upper Lake Creek Upper Lake Creek_above Bull Lake Upper Lake Creek Upper Lake Creek_below Bull Lake Big Cherry Creek Big Cherry Creek Granite Creek Granite Creek Libby Creek Lower Libby Creek Lower Libby Creek Swamp Creek-Cowell Creek Swamp Creek-Cowell Creek Upper Libby Creek Upper Libby Creek Dry Fork Creek Dry Fork Creek Little Wolf Creek Little Wolf Creek Wolf Creek Lower Wolf Creek Lower Wolf Creek Middle Wolf Creek Middle Wolf Creek Upper Wolf Creek Upper Wolf Creek Weigel Creek Weigel Creek Pleasant Valley Fisher River Pleasant Valley Fisher River-Loon Lake Raven Creek_sub6code November 2011 3

Figure 1. Subwatersheds in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. November 2011 4

2.4 LANDSCAPE LAYERS Landscapes are delineated according to the EPA 2002 Level IV ecoregions (Woods et al., 2002). There are six Level IV ecoregions within the Kootenai-Fisher TPA: Tobacco Plains (15d) High Northern Rockies (15h) Salish Mountains (15l) Purcell-Cabinet-North Bitterroot Mountains (15q) Stillwater-Swan Wooded Valley (15t) Western Canadian Rockies (41c) All but one of the Level IV ecoregions within the Kootenai-Fisher TPA are constituents of the Northern Rockies Level III ecoregion, while the Western Canadian Rockies Level IV ecoregion is a constituent of the Canadian Rockies Level III ecoregion. Watersheds contributing to sediment listed stream segments in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA are comprised of three of the above listed Level IV ecoregions: High Northern Rockies, Salish Mountains, and Purcell-Cabinet-North Bitterroot Mountains. 2.5 ROAD CROSSINGS Road crossings were generated using the Intersect tool in ArcGIS. Input layers for this operation included the fully attributed roads layer discussed in Section 2.2, along with the 1:24,000 NHD stream layer. Information on ecoregion, annual precipitation, land ownership, and the watershed/subwatershed was extracted and joined to the roads data by use of the Identity tool. Through this process, the roads were cut by the boundaries of these various polygons and received the attributes of each. The Identity tool was run on the roads dataset for one polygon dataset, which produced an output dataset, which was then run through Identity on the next shapefile, and so forth, to create one final roads dataset. The result is a point feature class located at the intersections of the road and stream line features, and which includes surface type, land ownership and ecoregion attributes in one attribute table. This final road dataset was then imported to a geodatabase and run through topology checks to eliminate multipart features and any overlapping or intersecting lines. The roads data was further refined by visual inspection for duplicate data. The GIS model of road crossings yields an estimate of 1,989 crossings within the Kootenai-Fisher TPA (Tables 4 and 5). Road crossings are presented in Figure 2 and this information is summarized by subwatershed, ownership and ecoregion in Attachment A. Table 4. Number of road crossings per Level IV ecoregion in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. Level IV Ecoregion # of Crossings High Northern Rockies 1 Salish Mountains 1448 Purcell-Cabinet-North Bitterroot Mountains 540 Total 1989 November 2011 5

Table 5. Number of road crossings per land ownership in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. Land Ownership # of Crossings Private 855 Montana State Trust Lands 61 US Forest Service 1072 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 0 Unknown 1 Total 1989 2.6 PARALLEL ROAD SEGMENTS Road segments within 150 feet streams were also modeled using GIS. A distance of 150 feet was selected as a compromise between the maximum expected sediment transport distance (~300 feet) and accuracy limitations of the road and flowline data. A 150-foot buffer was applied to stream features in the 1:24,000 NHD stream layer to create a buffer polygon feature class, which was then intersected with the roads layer to create a layer of roads found within 150 feet of streams. This method duplicates the road/stream crossings described in Section 2.5. To address this, a 200-foot radius buffer of the crossing points was created. Using the Erase tool, the buffered areas were removed, creating the final parallel road segment layer. The 200-foot radius was derived from the WEPP model documentation for runoff from roads, which references 120 meters (roughly 400 feet) as the maximum expected flowpath length along a road with no cross drain (Elliot et al., 1999). The GIS model of parallel road segments yields an estimate of 76.58 miles within the Kootenai-Fisher TPA (Tables 6 and 7). Parallel road segments are presented in Figure 3 and this information is summarized by subwatershed, ownership and ecoregion in Attachment A. Table 6. Length of parallel road segments per Level IV ecoregion in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. Level IV Ecoregion Road Length (Miles) High Northern Rockies 0.00 Salish Mountains 49.96 Purcell-Cabinet-North Bitterroot Mountains 26.61 Total 76.58 Table 7. Length of parallel road segments per land ownership in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. Land Ownership Road Length (Miles) Private 36.89 Montana State Trust 3.86 US Forest Service 35.72 Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks 0.03 Unknown 0.07 Total 76.58 November 2011 6

3.0 SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PLAN A Quality Assurance Plan (QAPP) and Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) was developed for the Kootenai- Fisher TPA road assessment and modeling project using the summary information presented in this memo as well as other available resources. The goal of the QAPP/SAP is to assess a statistically representative portion of the road network that can be extrapolated to the entire TPA. A random selection of 40 road crossings in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA was developed using the Create Random Selection tool in the Hawth s Tools extension for ArcMap to provide a representative sample, with 28 road crossings selected for field data collection and 12 road crossings selected as alternate sites. November 2011 7

Figure 2. Road crossings in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. November 2011 8

Figure 3. Road segments parallel to streams in the Kootenai-Fisher TPA. November 2011 9

4.0 REFERENCES Elliot, W.J., D.E. Hall, and D.L. Scheele. 1999. WEPP:Road WEPP Interface for Predicting Road Runoff, Erosion and Sediment Delivery Technical Documentation. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station and San Dimas Technology and Development Center. Accessible at: http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/wepproaddoc.html Woods, A.J., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Nesser, J. Shelden, and S.H. Azevedo. 1999. Ecoregions of Montana (color poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S. Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000). November 2011 10

Attachment A Road Summary Statistics November 2011

ROAD LENGTH (MILES) ROAD DENSITY CROSSINGS BY ROAD CLASS CROSSINGS BY LAND OWNER CROSSINGS BY ECOREGION IV SUBWATERSHED TOTAL ROADS PAVED GRAVEL NATIVE UNKNOWN AREA (SQUARE MILES) TOTAL ROAD LENGTH (MILES) MILES OF ROAD PER SQUARE MILE TOTAL CROSSINGS PAVED GRAVEL NATIVE UNKNOWN PRIVATE STATE TRUST USFS FWP UNKNOWN 15h 15l 15q Big Cherry Creek 129.70 22.02 6.96 89.01 11.72 58.6 129.70 2.21 85 11 5 62 7 22 1 62 79 6 Bristow Creek 71.46 1.44 22.11 39.81 8.11 23.4 71.46 3.06 60 2 22 29 7 1 59 60 Dry Fork Creek 90.80 0.00 32.43 49.95 8.43 26.4 90.80 3.44 88 38 41 9 14 74 88 Granite Creek 10.78 2.64 0.00 6.56 1.58 27.1 10.78 0.40 5 2 3 1 4 5 Keeler Creek 160.11 9.84 15.96 104.53 29.77 44.8 160.11 3.58 148 9 17 88 34 12 1 135 148 Little Wolf Creek 129.82 0.15 3.14 126.34 0.18 38.1 129.82 3.41 138 1 3 134 108 12 18 138 Lower Lake Creek 130.75 27.71 15.65 84.18 3.22 40.2 130.75 3.25 79 17 12 49 1 57 2 20 79 Lower Libby Creek 207.96 39.72 14.70 136.63 16.91 54.4 207.96 3.82 139 12 7 105 15 32 4 102 1 139 Lower Wolf Creek 335.06 13.96 38.14 277.00 5.97 67.0 335.06 5.00 367 26 31 304 6 266 39 62 367 Middle Wolf Creek 94.19 5.60 0.28 86.46 1.84 25.8 94.19 3.65 69 2 65 2 44 25 69 Quartz Creek 106.34 0.00 25.63 74.46 6.25 35.8 106.34 2.97 92 28 55 9 7 85 1 91 Raven Creek_sub6code 22.89 0.18 0.00 22.71 0.00 3.5 22.89 6.58 39 2 37 38 1 39 Ross Creek 29.50 3.81 0.00 17.73 7.96 25.2 29.50 1.17 12 7 5 1 11 12 Stanley 96.63 9.64 5.86 72.24 8.90 27.9 96.63 3.46 81 12 5 62 2 26 55 81 Swamp Creek-Cowell Creek 135.90 7.41 9.84 116.23 2.42 27.0 135.90 5.03 136 11 13 111 1 56 1 79 136 Upper Lake Creek_below Bull Lake 78.52 7.49 4.60 63.27 3.17 39.3 78.52 2.00 55 10 1 41 3 29 26 55 Upper Lake Creek_above Bull Lake 39.06 9.28 1.43 27.25 1.11 20.2 39.06 1.93 27 7 20 25 2 27 Upper Libby Creek 210.66 21.05 0.00 181.67 7.94 67.1 210.66 3.14 182 24 155 3 15 1 166 141 41 Upper Wolf Creek 117.83 12.92 12.29 90.09 2.53 44.2 117.83 2.67 151 29 16 104 2 101 50 151 Weigel Creek 37.20 0.00 12.95 23.53 0.71 14.7 37.20 2.53 36 15 20 1 36 36 SUM: 2235.16 194.83 221.96 1689.64 128.73 710.76 2235.16 3.14 1989 184 213 1490 102 855 61 1072 0 1 1 1448 540 PARALLEL SEGMENT ROAD LENGTH (MILES) LAND OWNER ROAD LENGTH (MILES) ECOREGION IV ROAD LENGTH (MILES) SUBWATERSHED TOTAL PARALLEL ROADS PAVED GRAVEL NATIVE UNKNOWN PRIVATE STATE TRUST USFS FWP UNKNOWN 15h 15l 15q Big Cherry Creek 4.97 0.21 0.13 4.00 0.63 0.79 4.18 3.45 1.52 Bristow Creek 0.96 0.33 0.40 0.23 0.96 0.96 Dry Fork Creek 1.98 0.56 1.09 0.34 0.55 0.06 1.38 1.98 Granite Creek 0.19 0.01 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.07 0.19 Keeler Creek 6.83 0.19 0.55 3.94 2.15 0.17 0.01 6.65 6.83 Little Wolf Creek 2.96 0.03 0.03 2.90 2.54 0.31 0.12 2.96 Lower Lake Creek 7.02 2.45 1.38 3.16 0.04 5.36 0.12 1.55 7.02 Lower Libby Creek 5.24 0.14 0.08 4.62 0.40 2.99 0.26 1.93 0.07 5.24 Lower Wolf Creek 13.92 4.26 1.97 7.60 0.10 8.52 2.77 2.63 13.92 Middle Wolf Creek 2.15 0.21 1.94 0.01 1.62 0.53 2.15 Quartz Creek 3.58 1.39 2.06 0.12 0.29 3.29 3.58 Raven Creek_sub6code 0.44 0.44 0.44 0.44 Ross Creek 0.34 0.15 0.15 0.04 0.07 0.23 0.03 0.34 Stanley 3.65 0.64 0.24 2.75 0.01 1.25 2.40 3.65 Swamp Creek-Cowell Creek 8.91 3.15 0.22 5.54 5.62 0.00 3.29 8.91 Upper Lake Creek_below Bull Lake 2.15 0.09 0.05 1.84 0.16 1.54 0.61 2.15 Upper Lake Creek_above Bull Lake 1.11 0.13 0.97 1.06 0.05 1.11 Upper Libby Creek 4.83 1.41 2.93 0.49 1.32 0.34 3.16 4.40 0.43 Upper Wolf Creek 4.55 0.70 0.04 3.76 0.05 2.64 1.90 4.55 Weigel Creek 0.79 0.38 0.38 0.03 0.79 0.79 SUM: 76.58 13.76 7.35 47.69 7.77 36.89 3.86 35.72 0.03 0.07 0.00 49.96 26.61 November 2011