Air Resource Management Plan

Home , Eagles Nest Wilderness, Flat Tops (Colorado), Holy Cross Wilderness, Mount Sopris, Raggeds Wilderness, White River Plateau

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST

Prepared By: Laura Hudnell, Meg Lindsey, Tamara Franklin Blett, and John McCarthy

(1988-93)

Updated and Revised By: Andria Holland-Sears (1998)

Approval ______Date______Forest Supervisor, White River NF Executive Summary

The goals of this plan are to coordinate and provide guidance for protection of air quality and air quality related values in the management of the White River National Forest (WRNF). It includes a monitoring program, which is intended to assess current resource conditions, determine potential impacts to those resources, and coordinate monitoring being conducted by various entities. The plan is divided into six primary sections.

Section I - This section is intended to summarize the legal basis and responsibilities for protection of air quality on the WRNF. It includes summaries of applicable sections of both the Federal Clean Air Act and the Colorado Air Quality Control Act. Forest Service policy related to management of the air resource in the National Forests is also summarized and refer- enced.

Section II - This section addresses the Forest’s three Class I Air Quality Areas: the Flat Tops, Eagles Nest, and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wildernesses. Included in this section are descriptions of the resources of each wilderness, existing and potential air quality impacts, and identification of the Air Quality Related Values (AQRV’s). Sensitive receptors which represent the air quality values are identified for each Class I Area. A review of existing information and a monitoring strategy is included for each of the AQRV’s in each area. In- terim "Limits of Acceptable Change" in Sensitive Receptors are identified.

Section III - This part of the plan addresses the remainder of the Forest, both wilderness and non-wilderness, which is classified as a Class II air quality area. The wilderness part of this section includes applicable Forest Service policy, descriptions of the Class II wildernesses, air quality related values, potential impacts, and monitoring needs. The non-wilderness portion discusses smoke sensitive areas, non-attainment areas, wildfire management, prescribed burning, gravel pits, roads, and other permitted National Forest uses.

Section IV - This is a description of existing databases and procedures for storage and retrieval of the data collected through the air resource monitoring program. Future needs and improvements are also discussed.

Section V - Describes the roles of the various agencies and entities involved in air resource monitoring on the White River NF. Identifies opportunities and needs for future cooperation and coordination.

Section VI - This section includes a budget summary/action plan, training needs for Forest personnel, and quality control procedures and requirements.

It should be noted that preparation of this plan began in 1988 and has been updated in 1998. During the intervening time period, there have been numerous changes and developments, which influence air resource management on the WRNF and other National Forests. These changes will continue and will dictate future revisions and updates in this plan. WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN Plan Outline

(Revised September 21, 1993) (Revised February, 1998)

Page

I. Introduction I-1

A. Applicable Air Quality Laws and Regulations I-1

1. Federal Clean Air Act I-1

2. Colorado State Clean Air Act I-4

B. Forest Service National and Regional Air Resource I-8 Management Policy

C. White River National Forest Land and Resource I-9 Management Plan (Forest Plan) Direction

Specific Management Objectives: 1. Federal Air Quality Standards I-11 2. State Air Quality Standards I-12 3. PSD Increments I-12

II. Class I Air Quality Areas

A. Descriptions - Class I Air Quality Areas II-1

1. Flat Tops Wilderness II-1

2. Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness II-4

3. Eagles Nest Wilderness II-7

B. Existing and Potential Impacts II-10 Page

C. Air Quality Related Values and Sensitive Receptors II-22

D. Monitoring of Air Quality Related Values II-25

1. Flora II-25

2. Fauna II-30

3. Water II-32

4. Visibility II-34

5. Soils II-38

6. Atmospheric Deposition & Ambient Air Quality II-40

7. Snowpack Chemistry & Snow Melt II-42

8. Meteorology II-43

E. Limits of Acceptable Change II-47

III. Class II Air Quality Areas - Wilderness and Non-Wilderness

A. Wilderness - Class II Air Quality Areas III-1

1. Forest Service Policy III-1

2. Descriptions and Air Quality Related Values III-2

3. Potential Impacts and Monitoring Needs III-3

B. Non-Wilderness Areas III-6

1. Smoke Sensitive and Non-Attainment Areas III-6

2. Wildfire Management and Prescribed Burning III-9

3. Gravel Pits and Roads III-11

4. Other Permitted National Forest Uses III-12 Page

IV. Air Resource Data Management IV-1

V. Coordination V-1

Description of the roles of other agencies and cooperators.

VI. Work Load Analysis, Budgeting, VI-1 Training & Quality Control

A. Budgeting VI-1

B. Training Needs VI-3

C. Quality Control VI-4

References Ref-1

Appendices

A - Fish Stocked Wilderness Lake and Streams A-1

B - Pollution Sensitive Lichen B-1

C - EPA Western Lakes Survey C-1 Wilderness Lake Monitoring Data and Graphs

D - Long Term Lake Sampling Protocols D-1

E - Visibility Monitoring Protocols E-1 Visibility Monitoring Data

F - NADP Network Locations in Colorado F-1 NADP Data for Four Mile and Sunlight Peak Sites

TABLES

Page

..... Table 1.. Air Quality Related Values I-10

..... Table 2.. Federal NAAQ Standards I-11

..... Table 3.. PSD Increments I-12

..... Table 4.. Annual Emissions - Existing Major Sources II-15

..... Table 5.. Annual Emissions - Smaller Sources/County II-16

..... Table 6.. Proposed Oil Shale Developments - Colorado II-20 ... and Utah

..... Table 7.. Location of RAWS sites in WRNF area II-45

..... Table 8.. SNOTEL Sites on WRNF II-46

..... Table 9.. NRCS Snow Course Sites on WRNF II-46

..... Table 10 PM10 Exceedances for Aspen and III-8 ...... Steamboat Springs

..... Table 11 Key to Pollutant Sources III-13

..... Table 12 WRNF Air Resource Management Action Plan VI-2

..... Table 13 Precision, Accuracy & Completeness for VI-7 Water Chemistry Parameters ...... Table 14 Reporting Units & Detection Limits for VI-8 Water Chemistry

..... Table 15 Maximum Control Limits for Quality Control VI-9 Samples

..... Table 16 Preservation Method & Holding Time for VI-10 Water Sample Parameters

FIGURES & EXHIBITS

Page

..... Figure 1A - 1D Winds Aloft - Grand Junction, CO. II-11

..... Figure 2 ... Location of Proposed Oil Shale II-19 . Developments - Colorado & Utah

..... Figure 3 ... Flow Diagram of Air Resource Monitoring VI-6 Organization - WRNF

..... Exhibit 1 ... Map of Flat Tops Wilderness II-2

..... Exhibit 2 ... Map of Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness II-6

..... Exhibit 3 ... Map of Eagles Nest Wilderness II-8

..... Exhibit 4 ... Map of Wilderness Areas on the WRNF - III-5 Class I & II Air Quality Areas

..... Exhibit 5 ... Map of Smoke Sensitive Areas - WRNF III-8

WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST

AIR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

I. INTRODUCTION

Known for its skiing, scenery, wildlife, and wilderness, the White River National Forest (WRNF) provides quality recreation experiences for visitors from around the world. Along with visibility, a variety of ecosystems in the WRNF have the potential to be affected by human-caused air pollution. The purposes of this management plan are to assess current resource conditions, to determine potential impacts to these resources from man-caused pollution sources, and to coordinate and provide guidance to air resource management activities on the WRNF in accordance with the following laws,regulations, policies, and direction.

A. Applicable Air Quality Laws and Regulations

1. Federal Clean Air Act

Congress passed the Clean Air Act in 1960 with major amendments to the Act in 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990. The purpose of the Act is to enhance the quality of the nation’s air resources and to protect public health and welfare.

The Act established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and gave the states primary responsibility for air quality management. States carry out this responsibility through a State Imple- mentation Plan (SIP), which is developed at the state level. How states achieve and maintain applicable federal and state standards is described in the State Implementation Plan. Table 2, page I-11 lists the current NAAQS that apply both federally and throughout the state of Colorado.

Several sections of the Act directly affect management of the National Forests:

Section 109 - National Ambient Air Quality Standards - NAAQS have been established for particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, and lead. There are primary NAAQS established to protect human health and secondary NAAQS to protect welfare. The standards are expressed in terms of different averaging times, e.g., annual, 24-hour, and 3-hour.

"Non-attainment areas" are those geographical areas within the state that have air pollutant levels in excess of the NAAQS. If an area is not in attainment of an NAAQS, then a State Implementation Plan must be developed to attain the standard by a certain date by controlling the pollutant emissions from the responsible sources.

Periodic review and revision of the NAAQS is required by the Clean Air Act. States must revise their State Implementation Plans to demonstrate attainment of new standards as they are developed.

Section 116 - A state may adopt and enforce standards and regulations, which are more stringent than those required by the Clean Air Act (but never less stringent). Section 118 - In general, any State Implementation Plan applies to any federal facility emitting air pollution to the same extent that it applies to a non-governmental entity.

Section 176(c) - A federal agency must not engage in, support in any way, license, or approve any activity, which does not meet all applicable requirements of the State Implementation Plan.

Sections 160-169 - Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (PSD) - The fundamental principle in the PSD program is that air quality in clean air areas (attainment areas) may not be significantly degraded.

The PSD program established three air quality classes (I, II, and III) each with defined allowable levels of air quality deteriorations. These "increments" of allowable deterioration over baseline are listed in Table 3, page I-12 for each area class for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter pollutants.

The Class I increments allow for much less air quality deterioration than the Class II and Class III increments. For example, the increments over baseline for particulate matter are:

Class I Area - 10 micrograms/meter3, 24-hour average Class II Area - 37 micrograms/meter3, 24-hour average Class III Area - 75 micrograms/meter3, 24-hour average

Baseline conditions are defined as the actual concentration of pollutants at the geographic point in question on the date of the first relevant PSD permit applications, less any fraction attributable to sources on which construction commenced after January 6, 1975.

The Class I areas created by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments are called Mandatory Federal Class I areas. The Mandatory Federal Class I areas include the following areas in existence on Au- gust 7, 1977, and any additions to those areas since that date (1990 Amendment):

National Parks exceeding 6,000 acres National Wilderness areas exceeding 5,000 acres National Memorial Parks exceeding 5,000 acres International Parks

All other areas are classified as Class II areas. No state has reclassified a Class II area as Class III.

All National Forest lands except for wildernesses established prior to August 7, 1977 are Class II air quality areas.

The PSD program requires preconstruction permits (PSD permits) for major new stationary emitting sources. PSD permits are also required for modification of existing major stationary emitting sources. A major stationary source is defined as one which would emit 100 or 250 tons per year of a regulated pollutant depending upon the type of source. Prescribed burning and forestry operations are not currently considered to be stationary sources. PSD permitting authority has been delegated to the State of Colorado.

I-2 If a proposed project would affect a federal Class I area, the State of Colorado must notify the Fed- eral Land Manager and the federal official with direct responsibility for managing the area. The Federal Land Manager and that official have an affirmative responsibility to protect the Air Quality Related Values (AQRV’s) of the area. If the Federal Land Manager shows that the project would affect an AQRV adversely, the permitting authority may not issue the permit, even if the project would not cause or contribute to an increment violation. If the Federal Land Manager certifies that the project would not adversely affect AQRV’s, the permitting authority may issue a permit (with limitations), even if the project would cause or contribute to an increment violation. Air Quality Re- lated Values for Wildernesses in the Rocky Mountain Region are listed in Table 1 of this plan (page I-10).

The 1977 Amendment also provides for certain gubernatorial and presidential variances from the Class I sulfur dioxide increment limitations.

Section 169A - Visibility Protection for Mandatory Class I Areas - This section states that "Congress hereby declares as a national goal the prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing impairment of visibility in Mandatory Class I Federal areas, which impairment results from man- made air pollution."

Section 169A required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop regulations to assure reasonable progress toward meeting the national goal. These required regulations must provide guidance to the states for implementing a Mandatory Class I area visibility protection program by revising their State Implementation Plan. EPA promulgated these regulations on December 2, 1980 (45 CFR 80084).

The 1980 EPA regulations require states with Mandatory Class I areas to develop visibility protection SIPS including the following elements:

New Source Review Existing Major Stationary Source Controls (BART) Monitoring Long-Term Strategy Integral Vistas

In 1991, Congress created the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport Commission (GCVTC) to advise the EPA on strategies for protecting visual air quality at national parks and wilderness areas on the Colorado Plateau. In 1996, the GCVTC published its recommendations to the EPA that included specific actions as well as options for consideration. The recommendations include:

Air Pollution Prevention: Policies should be based on energy conservation, increased energy ef- ficiency and promotion of the use of renewable resources for energy production.

Clean Air Corridors: These are key sources of clean air at Class I areas necessitating careful tracking of emissions growth that may affect air quality in these corridors.

Stationary Sources: Regional targets for SO2 from stationary sources will be set, starting in 2000.

I-3 Areas In and Near Parks: Local, state, tribal, federal and private parties should cooperatively develop strategies, expand data collection and improve modeling for reducing or preventing visibility impairment in areas within and adjacent to parks and wilderness areas.

Mobile Sources: Cap emissions at the lowest level achieved and establish a regional emissions budget.

Road Dust: Further study is needed to resolve the uncertainties regarding both near-field and dis- tant effects of road dust on visibility. The GCVTC felt this issue deserves a high priority attention.

Emissions from Mexico: Continue binational collaboration to work on reducing Mexico’s significant SO2 emissions contribution to visibility reduction on the Colorado Plateau. Also complete emissions inventories and increase monitoring capacities to support such efforts.

Fire: Implement programs to minimize emissions and visibility impacts from prescribed fire and educate the public.

2. Colorado State Clean Air Act (Colorado Air Quality Control Act)

The state of Colorado has taken the citizen board approach as a means of regulating air quality. The board is made up of nine commissioners advised by the Department of Health. The Commission was created by Article 7 of Title 25, C.R.S. to:

1) Adopt an air quality program for the state.

2) Assure that the state’s program meets the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act.

3) Deal with the issuing of or denial of a PSD permit, permit conditions, and enforcement or- ders.

The following is a list of the sections in the Colorado Air Quality Control Act that pertain to Na- tional Forest Management:

25-7-102: The State is to:

1) Achieve the maximum practical degree of air purity in every portion of the state.

2) Attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

3) Prevent the significant deterioration of air quality in those portions of the state where the air quality is better than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

4) Require the use of all available and practical methods that are technologically feasible and economically reasonable to reduce, prevent, and control air pollution throughout the state.

5) Require the development of an air quality control program.

I-4 6) Maintain a cooperative program between the state and local units of government.

25-7-108:

No part of the Colorado State Clean Air Act shall prohibit the Commission from adopting Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are more stringent than the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

25-7-124:

1) The Air Quality Control Commission shall serve as the state agency for all purposes of the Fed- eral Clean Air Act and regulations promulgated under the act.

2) The Department of Health shall accept and supervise the administration of loans and grants from the federal government, which are received by the state for air pollution control purposes.

3) The Department of Health may enter into agreement with any air pollution control agency of the federal government. Once a hearing is held, any agreement involving authorization or compliance with any state ambient air quality standard or emission control regulation will go into effect.

25-7-133:

In accordance with section 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act, the state will develop and submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to the EPA after it has been submitted to and reviewed by the state legislative council.

25-7-201a:

Increases in air pollutant concentrations from the construction of a major stationary source or from the modification of a stationary source, shall be the same as those set by sections 163(b) and 166(a) of the Federal Clean Air Act.

State Regulation No.3:

Regulation No.3 is the "Regulation Requiring Air Contaminant Emission Notices, Emission Permits and Fees". Only those portions of the regulation that deal with Federal Class I areas will be discussed here.

Section VIII. Area Classification:

This section deals with defining and listing the Class I areas that are managed by the Forest Service. There are eight Class I Wilderness Areas in Colorado, which are managed by the Forest Service and four Class I areas managed by the National Park Service. See pages 3.44 to 3.45 in Regulation No.3.

I-5 Section IX. Redesignation:

This section deals with redesignation of any area to a Class I, II, or III area by the Commission. At the present time, there are no areas in Colorado that are designated as Class III areas. See pages 3.45 to 3.46 in Regulation No. 3.

Section X. Air Quality Limits:

This section lists the maximum allowable increases over baseline concentrations. These are the Am- bient Air Increments for sulfur dioxide and particulates in Class I, II, and III areas. See pages 3.47 to 3.48 in Regulation No. 3.

Section XII. Technical Modeling and Monitoring Requirements:

This section discusses the use of Air Quality models and the kind of monitoring that the state deals with. This will be one source that the Forest Service could check to see what models and monitoring could be done in the state. See pages 3.50 to 3.54 in Regulation No.3. Another source of information is via the internet at the following site address:

http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/cdphe_dir/ap/cmg_home.html

Section XIV. Federal Class I Areas:

This section discusses the Federal Class I areas, state PSD permitting responsibilities, monitoring, and variances for sulfur dioxide and emission limitations. See pages 3.55 to 3.59 of Regulation No.3.

Section XIV. A:

Within twenty (20) days after receiving a permit application, the Air Pollution Control Division (known as the Division) will send a copy to the Federal Land Manager (FLM) and consult with them as to the completeness of the analysis and monitoring of the AQRV’s. This is done only if it is shown that the new source or the modification to an existing source may affect AQRV’s including Visibility, in a Federal Class I area.

If the Division receives advance notice of a permit application, it will notify the FLM within thirty (30) days after the advance notice.

Once the FLM receives a copy of a completed permit application, they have thirty (30) days to per- form any analysis and to report back to the Division any adverse impacts to AQRV’s including Vis- ibility, that need to be considered by the Division before approval or disapproval of the permit.

XIV. B:

The Division may require an emission source to monitor emissions prior to the completion of an application for a permit to construct during construction, and during the operation of the source.

I-6 XIV. C:

Once the FLM has completed the preliminary analysis required under Section IV. B of Regulation No.3 the information may be presented to the Division to show that the new source or the modification to an existing source will have an adverse impact on the AQRV’s in a Federal Class I area even though the maximum allowable increases for a Federal Class I area are not exceeded. If the Division agrees, the permit may not be issued.

XIV. D:

If the emissions from a new source or modification of an existing source would cause or contribute to an exceedance of the maximum allowable increment levels for a Class I area, the owner/operator may seek to demonstrate to the FLM and the Division that the emissions will not have an adverse impact on the Class I area. If the owner/operator can successfully demonstrate this to the FLM’s and Division’s satisfaction, a permit may be issued.

XIV. E:

If the owner/operator of an emitting source feels that the maximum allowable increases in sulfur dioxide for a twenty-four hour period or less will stop the building or modification of a source, he can appeal to the Governor, who can grant a variance from the standard. The Division can then issue the permit provided that all other requirements of Regulation No.3 are met, and that a notice and opportunity for a public hearing are completed.

XIV. F:

If the FLM does not agree with the Governors’ decision, the recommendations of the FLM and the Governor can be sent to the President of the United States for a final decision on the permit.

Section XV. Visibility:

This section of the regulation deals with remedying existing impairments to visibility and the prevention of future impairment to visibility in a Federal Class I area where the impairment is a result of man-made air pollution.

XV. D:

The Division or the FLM can at any time certify to the Division director that visibility is being impaired in a Federal Class I area. The Division can also do this without the agreement of the FLM. If an existing source is found to be causing or contributing to visibility impairment, the Division can issue a permit that requires the installation and operation of BART (Best Available Retrofit Technol- ogy) or another method that will serve the same purpose as the BART.

I-7 B. Forest Service Air Resource Management Policy

1. National

The following is a summary of Forest Service policy related to management of the air resource in the National Forests as stated in FSM 2580.3:

a) Integrate air resource management objectives into all resource planning and management activities.

b) Use cost effective methods of achieving resource management objectives. The following is a list of those objectives:

1) Protect air quality related values within Class I areas as described in 42 USC 7475(d)(2)(B) and (C) and FSM 2580.5.

2) Control and minimize air pollutant impacts from land management activities.

3) Cooperate with air regulatory authorities to prevent significant adverse effects of air pollutants and atmospheric deposition on forest and rangeland resources.

In addition to the above, FSM 2320 contains policy on the management and protection of the air resource in wilderness areas. The following is a summary of policy stated in FSM 2323.62:

a) Define air quality related values (AQRV) and initiate action to protect those values.

b) For each AQRV, select sensitive indicators, monitor, and establish the acceptable level of protection needed to prevent adverse impacts. (FSM 2120)

c) Determine the potential impacts of proposed facilities in coordination with State air quality management agencies. Make appropriate recommendations in the permitting process following established PSD application review procedures for major emissions sources. Requests to air quality management agencies for consideration of Class II values in the permit process are appropriate. (FSM 2120)

d) Manage smoke from management ignited prescribed fires occurring in or adjacent to Class I wilderness areas in a manner that causes the least impact on air quality related values. (FSM 2324)

I-8 2. Regional

The Rocky Mountain Region has not supplemented the National Forest Service policy for air resource management except in wilderness areas. Regional policy for managing the air resources in wilderness areas is stated in FSM 2323.62, R-2 Supplement 110 as follows:

2323.62 Policy: a) Air pollutants from a number of sources external to wilderness have the potential to impact many resources within wildernesses. Table 1 identifies air quality related values, which may be impacted by air pollutants and some of the changes that may result. b) A specific action program to protect air quality related values should be developed for each wilderness that is either presently or has the potential to be impacted by air pollutants. The development and implementation of specific action programs shall be prioritized on a Regional basis. The purposes of a specific action program are as follows:

1) Determine the sensitive receptors, if any, for each air quality related value. A sensitive receptor for flora may be a specific species of lichen; for fauna, a species of zoo-plankton; for water, a lake with a low alkalinity; for visibility, a long view within a wilderness. Monitoring and/or a literature search may be necessary to make these determinations.

2) Determine the baseline physical, chemical, biological, and/or social condition of each sensitive receptor.

3) Determine if there is existing human-caused change to any sensitive receptors.

4) Predict if new sources of air pollution will impact any sensitive receptors.

5) Determine if new air pollution results in impacts to sensitive receptors. c) Research on the impacts of air pollution on air quality related values is a legitimate activity in wilderness. Methods which temporarily infringe on the wilderness character may be used provided the information sought is essential to wilderness protection, and alternative methods or locations are not available. d) Since fire and the resultant smoke is a part of the natural process, users may be provided the opportunity to experience this natural event.

C. Forest Plan Direction for White River National Forest

Per the proposed Draft Revised Forest Plan, the WRNF must, "conduct all land management activities in such a manner as to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local air quality standards and regulations", including those discussed earlier in Section I. A. of this Plan as well as the standards displayed on Pages I-11 to I-12.

I-9 TABLE 1 AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES (AQRV'S)

AQRV IMPACTS - CHANGES IN:

1. Flora and Fauna Growth, Mortality, Reproduction, Diversity, Visible Injury, Succession, Productivity.

2. Soil Cation Exchange Capacity, Base Saturation, pH, Structure, Metals Concentration.

3. Water pH, Total Alkalinity, Metal Concentration, Anion and Cation Concentrations.

4. Visibility Contrast, Visual Range, Coloration.

5. Cultural-Archaeological Decomposition Rate and Paleontological

6. Odor Odor

I-10 1. Federal NAAQ Standards

Table 2

Time Pollutant Period Primary Secondary

TSP (Total Suspended Particulates 4 Hours 260 ug/m3 150 ug/m3

*Annual (geometric mean) 75 ug/m3 60 ug/m3

3 SO2 (Sulfur Dioxide) 3 Hours None 1300 ug/m (0.5 ppm)

24 Hours 365 ug/m3 None (0.14 ppm)

*Annual (arithmetic mean) 80 ug/m3 None (0.03 ppm)

3 3 NO2 (Nitrogen Dioxide) *Annual (arithmetic mean) 100 ug/m 100 ug/m (0.53 ppm) (0.53 ppm)

O3 **8 Hour 0.08 ppm 0.08 ppm

CO (Carbon Monoxide) 1 Hour 40,000 ug/m3 40,000 ug/m3 (35 ppm) (35 ppm)

8 Hours 10,000 ug/m3 10,000 ug/m3 (9 ppm) (9 ppm)

Pb (Lead) 3 mos. Av. 1.5 ug/m3 1.5 ug/m3

PM-10 *Annual (arithmetic mean) 50 ug/m3 50 ug/m3

24 Hours 150 ug/m3 150 ug/m3

PM-2.5 ***Annual 15 ug/m3 15 ug/m3

24 Hrs 65 ug/m3 65 ug/m3

Primary Standards protect human health; Secondary Standards protect human welfare.

*Annual standards are not to be exceeded. All other standards, except as noted, are not to be exceeded more than once per year.

** Attainment if 3-year average of annual 4th highest daily maximum 8-hour concentrations are below this standard

*** Attainment if 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean is less than or equal to standard.

I-11 2. State Air Quality Standards

Colorado’s ambient air quality standards are the same as the Federal NAAQS except that Colorado’s lead standard is a one-month average. Also, Colorado has a visibility standard for the Front Range Urban area.

3. PSD Increments

TABLE 3

Allowable Increments (ug/m3) Pollutant Averaging Period Class I Class II

PM10 *Annual arithmetic mean 4 17 24 Hours 8 30

TSP *Annual geometric mean 5 19 24 Hours 10 37

SO2 *Annual arithmetic mean 2 120 24 Hours 15 91 3 Hours 25 512

NO2 *Annual arithmetic mean 2.5 25

*Annual standards are not to be exceeded. All other standards are not to be exceeded more than once per year.

I-12 II. CLASS I AIR QUALITY AREAS

A. Class I Air Quality Area Descriptions:

The White River National Forest has three Class I Air Quality Areas:

1) Flat Tops Wilderness

2) Maroon Bells - Snowmass Wilderness

3) Eagles Nest Wilderness

1. Flat Tops Wilderness

General Description:

In 1919 Arthur Carhart fought for alternatives to building a road and subdivisions around Trappers Lake. The plans initiated by Carhart forever changed Trappers Lake's destiny and that of the Flat Tops Primitive Area surrounding it as well as the future management of National Forest lands across the United States. His planning philosophies were directly tied to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Arthur Carhart eventually became known as the "Father of the Wilderness Concept," and the Trap- pers Lake area on the WRNF National Forest is referred to as the "Cradle of Wilderness." The Flat Tops Wilderness was established on the December 12, 1975, under Public Law 94-146. The geographic area of the Wilderness is divided between two National Forests. The Routt National Forest contains a small section in the northeast corner and the WRNF contains the remaining area (Exhibit 1, page II-2, shows the portion on the WRNF). The gross (includes private inholdings within the Wilderness) and net acres (National Forest System lands designated as wilderness) are split between the two Forests as follows. The source of this information is the Rocky Mountain Region's "Land Areas Report" for FY95.

Forest Gross Acres Net Acres Routt 38,870 38,870 White River 196,360 196,165 Totals 235,230 235,035

The WRNF portion of the Flat Tops Wilderness is located on the northwest portion of the Forest. The Wilderness encompasses most of the White River Plateau in Garfield and Rio Blanco Counties and is contained within three Districts. About two thirds of the Wilderness lies within the Blanco Ranger District. The remaining area is within the Rifle and Eagle Districts with the majority within the latter.

Elevations range from 7,000 to 13,000 feet (2,134 to 3,962 meters). The topography ranges from rolling, treeless alpine meadows on the Tops, to sheer barren cliffs, to spruce covered mountainsides.

The area has been moderately dissected by stream erosion and glacial action. The plateau was formed from thick deposits of late Tertiary basalt that overlies the Leadville limestone (Mississip- pian age) and Dotsero Formation dolomite of Cambrian age. There are also a few areas where Pre- cambrian granite is exposed.

The stream valleys are covered with thick mantles of Quaternary glacial drift. Some of the valleys were formed from massive landslide deposits at the base of the vertical basalt walls.

Soils are variable. Generally, they are fairly stable and derive from granite, sandstone, limestone, and lava. The exception is the area to the northeast on the Routt National Forest. Soils here are of a shale origin and are a finely textured clay loam. They are fertile and productive, but subject to wind and water erosion with occasional "landflows".

The climate is a mid-latitude, high elevational type with warm summers and cold winters. Tempera- tures rarely rise above 85 degrees. Summers are short with an average growing season of 60 days; but frost can occur any time of the year. Winter temperatures may drop to extremes of 40 or more degrees below zero. In northwestern Colorado, the precipitation can range from 10 to 47 inches (250 to 1200 millimeters). About 40 to 70 percent of the precipitation falls as snow from October to June. The summer rainfall is highly variable usually coming from large moist north and southwesterly air masses. These air masses are usually accompanied by high intensity thunderstorms of short duration. The moisture distribution from these storms is highly dependent on the topography.

Broad cover types within the wilderness include: Engelmann spruce, Douglas-fir, aspen, brush, grassland, water, and other. Islands of timber surrounded by grassland comprise the typical vegeta- tive pattern on the plateaus. Approximately 40 percent of the plateau is grassland. Hanging garden sullivantia (Sullivantia hapemansii var. purpusii), which occurs in the Wilderness has been identified as "Sensitive" by the Forest Service, Region 2 (12/94 list). Other plant "species of concern" per the Colorado Natural Heritage Program include: Brewer's cliff brake (Pellaea breweri), Northern twayblade (Listera borealis), and Carex diandra.

An epidemic of spruce bark beetle during 1939-52 hit more than 68,000 acres of almost solid Engel- mann spruce stands in the Wilderness. Today, as these stands of dead trees fall, they are progres- sively adding to fuel loading. Dead spruce trees added to the fuel loading of the Ute Creek fire, which in 1994 burned a total of 3,000 acres, half of which was in the Flattops Wilderness.

Most of the Flat Tops Wilderness occupies the headwaters of the White River. Other major watersheds that the wilderness drains in to include the Colorado River to the east and the Yampa River to the north. Water yield from the drainages in the Flat Tops has high public value. Quality, quantity, and continuous flow of water are of major economic value to dependent downstream lands and users. The average annual precipitation of 30 to 40 inches yields between 10 and 20 inches of usable water annually. This averages to about 1.5 acre-feet of water per acre, totalling an estimated 213,000 acre-feet of water yield from the Wilderness.

A major part of the famous White River big game herds of several thousand deer and elk use the area during summer and fall. In addition, the area has black bear, mountain lion, bighorn sheep, and an occasional moose. Small game found in the area include blue grouse, white tailed Ptarmigan, snowshoe hares, pine squirrels, Nuttal's Cottontail, coyote, marmot, ground squirrels, and skunks. Other furbearers include bobcat, badger, fox, beaver, marten, mink, and weasel. Other native

II-3 mammals include pika, chipmunks, gophers, and porcupines. Other birds are migratory waterfowl, eagles, hawks, crows, ravens, jays, Clark's nutcrackers, and numerous smaller birds that are found seasonally in the Montane and Alpine areas of the Central Rocky Mountains. The Barrow goldeye, Osprey and Black swift are sensitive bird species (Forest Service, Region 2 designation) found in the Flat Tops Wilderness.

Many lakes within the area are good to excellent fisheries. Several are stocked by the Colorado Di- vision of Wildlife. Appendix A contains a list of lakes in each wilderness area where stocking occurred in 1994 and 1995. There are also a number of lakes which do not have fish. In addition to the lakes, over 50 miles of streams are rated as being good fisheries. Several of these contain "A+" strains of Colorado River cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus), which is a Forest Ser- vice, Region 2 sensitive species. Other sensitive aquatic species include the Northern Leopard frog and the Boreal toad (Bufo bufo boreas).

In 1995, the Flat Tops had 95.2 thousand recreation visitor days (within the WRNF). The majority of visitation occurs during the summer months.

2. Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness

General Description:

The Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness was first recognized for its wilderness attributes in 1933 when it was designated as a primitive area under Federal Regulation L-20. The name was changed from Primitive Area to Wild Area in 1956. With the passage of the Wilderness Act in 1964 the Ma- roon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness was established. At that time the Wilderness was 71,329 acres in size. It was enlarged by Public Law 96-560 adding 103,000 acres on December 22, 1980. The Wil- derness is internationally known for the Maroon Peaks, which are the most photographed mountains in the United States. The geographic area of the Wilderness is divided between two National Forests. Exhibit 2, page II-6, shows the portion within the WRNF. The Grand Mesa-Uncompahgre- Gunnison National Forest (GMUG) contains a very small section in the southern tip, and the WRNF covers the remaining area. The approximate gross and net acres are split between the two Forests as follows:

Forest Gross Acres Net Acres GMUG 20,364 19,194 White River 163,483 161,768 Totals 183,847 180,962

The Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness is located on the south central portion of the WRNF. The Wilderness includes most of the Elk Mountains and lies within both Gunnison and Pitkin Counties. Approximately two-thirds of the Wilderness is within the Aspen Ranger District; the remaining area is within the Sopris District of the WRNF and Taylor River District of the GMUG.

Elevations range from about 7,500 to 14,300 feet.

The Wilderness includes most of the Elk Mountain anticline, which is thrust-faulted in its southwestern part. The area is crossed by the Colorado mineral belt; a narrow, irregular strip of terrain that contains many of the mining districts in the State. The sedimentary rocks of Pennsylvanian to

II-4 Cretaceous age intruded by igneous rocks composed mostly of granodiorite. The intrusive rocks are mostly of middle Tertiary age.

The climate is a mid-latitude, high elevational type with warm summers and cold winters. The growing season is short. Most of the precipitation falls as snow from December to April.

Broad cover types within the Wilderness include: Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, aspen, lodgepole pine, Douglas-fir, mountain brush, mountain grassland, and other. Vegetation at the higher altitudes is fragile and slow to heal if damaged. There are three plant species found in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness that have been identified as "Sensitive" by the Forest Service, Region 2 (12/94 list). They are Woolly fleabane (Erigeron lanatus), Hanging garden sullivantia (Sullivantia hapemansii var. purpusii), and Leadville milkvetch (Astragulus molybdenus). Other "species of concern" per the Colorado Natural Heritage Program include: Canyon bog-orchid (Platanthera sparsiflora var. ensifol), Dwarf hawksbeard (Crepis nana), Draba speclabilis var. oxyloba, Colorado wild buckwheat (Eriogonum coloradence), Sierra corydalis (Corydalis caseana spp. brandegei), Porsild draba (Draba porsildii), Tundra draba (Draba ventosa), Draba lonchocarpa var. lonchocarpa, Thick leaf whitlow grass (Draba crassa), Altia chickweed (Stellaria irrigua), and Woods draba (Draba digosperma).

The Wilderness has big game such as elk, mule deer, mountain goats, bighorn sheep, and black bear. Important wildlife habitat for elk, deer, and bighorn sheep is located on the ridge between Conun- drum and East Maroon Creek; and in the Willow, Haystack, Capitol, and Redstone Management Units. Small game species, furbearers, other mammals, and birds are similar to the listed species for the Flat Tops Wilderness. Lynx, a sensitive species, may inhabit the area; but there are no known threatened and endangered animal species.

Several of the lakes within the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness are stocked by the Colorado Di- vision of Wildlife. Appendix A contains a list of the lakes where stocking occurred in 1994 and 1995.

Forest Service (Region 2) sensitive aquatic species include the Boreal toad (Bufo bufo boreas) and Colorado river cutthroat (Oncorhynchus clarki pleuriticus).

In 1995 the Wilderness had 104.9 thousand recreation visitor days. A majority of this visitation occurs during the summer months.

II-5

3. Eagles Nest Wilderness

General Description:

The Eagles Nest Wilderness was established on July 12, 1976, under Public Law 94-352. The Gore Range provides a beautiful background from some of Colorado's ski area peaks. The geographic area of the wilderness is divided between two National Forests, the Arapaho & Roosevelt (AR) and the WRNF. The approximate gross and net acres are split between the two Forests as follows:

Forest Gross Acres Net Acres Arapahoe Roosevelt 82,391 82,324 White River 51,105 50,582 Totals 133,496 132,906

The Eagles Nest Wilderness is located on the northeast portion of the Forest (see Exhibit 3, page II- 8). The Wilderness is within the Holy Cross and Dillon Ranger Districts. Elevations range from 7,850 to 13,534 feet, with an average over 10,500 feet.

The topography is dominated by the Gore Range, which is a chain of sharp peaks, rugged escarp- ments, and narrow mountain valleys. Bedrock in the area consists of several varieties of crystalline and metamorphic rocks of Precambrian age. Paleozoic and Mesozoic sediments were deposited over much of the area, but subsequent uplift of the Gore Range accompanied by erosive processes has stripped the sediments from the highlands. Glaciers occupied most of the major valleys, and consequently, the valleys are blanketed by glacial and other surficial deposits.

Soils are developing on parent material derived from granite, schist, and gneiss. These soils occur on the steep slopes under a cover of trees. They are rocky, very acid, have varying depths and are adapted to the rapid movement of water. There is very little erosion on these soils if the litter or veg- etative protection is not destroyed. Terminal moraines can be found as well as areas of glacial till and outwash. Soil development on these glacial, colluvial, and residual soils differ because of the wide variation in elevation, climate, vegetation, and topography.

Average annual precipitation is between 25 and 30 inches, and occurs mainly in the form of snow. Summer rain showers are usually of short duration and frequently produce hail and sleet. June and September are usually the dry months. Summer temperatures rarely exceed a maximum of 80 degrees and prevail from June through September. Winter minimums may reach 30 to 50 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. The growing season averages less than 60 days, and there are practically no extended frost free periods at the higher elevations.

The average water yield for the Wilderness is about 1.70 acre-feet per acre.

Broad cover types within the Wilderness include: Lodgepole pine, Engelmann spruce, subalpine fir, Douglas-fir, aspen, grassland, brush, and water. Timber sites vary from poor on the steep, rocky hillsides and glacial moraines; to good in the narrow, moist valleys. Purple Lady's slipper (Cypripe- dium fasciculatum) is a Forest Service (Region 2) "sensitive species" found in Eagle's Nest

II-7

Wilderness. Other "species of concern" per the Colorado Natural Heritage Program include: Low northern sedge (Carex concinna), Mud sedge (Carex limosa), and Northern twayblade (Listeria borealis).

Elk, deer, mountain goat, bighorn sheep, black bear, mountain lion, bobcat, and coyote inhabit the area. Lynx may also use this area. The smaller mammals include snowshoe hare, pine squirrel, beaver, badger, marten, weasel, mink, fox, skunk, porcupine, chipmunk, pika, marmot, and field mice. Ptarmigan, blue grouse, golden eagle, and many species of songbirds are present. There are reports of bald eagles in the vicinity of Eagles Nest Mountain. Lakes provide brook, native, and rainbow trout. Several streams contain "A+" strains of Colorado River cutthroat trout, which is a "species of concern" (Colorado Natural Heritage Program). Boreal toads (Bufo bufo boreas) have been found in the Wilderness and are also a "species of concern".

Several of the lakes within the Eagle's Nest Wilderness are stocked by the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Appendix A contains a list of the lakes where stocking occurred in 1994 and 1995.

In 1995 the Wilderness had 122 thousand recreation visitor days. A majority of visitation occurs during the summer months.

II-9 B. Existing and Potential Impacts

The Class I Air Quality areas on the WRNF are wilderness areas that were designated as such (per the Wilderness Act of 1964) prior to or in 1977. Except for fires within the wilderness areas, the only potential for adverse impacts on air quality is from airborne pollutants transported into the Class I Areas by gradient and/or local winds.

The prevailing winds over the WRNF are from the southwest, west, or west-northwest. Figures 1A through 1D depict the wind directions for the highest percentage of time during January, April, July, and October as measured at Grand Junction by the Colorado State Climatological Center. The winds at and above 11,800 feet elevation are considered to be representative of the gradient winds over the Forest. These charts show that, based on a 20 year average, the upper level winds during April, July, and October are from the southwest 24% to 36% of the time. During January, the upper level winds are from the west-northwest 31% to 35% of the time.

Following the passage of cold fronts, the gradient winds shift to a northwest to northerly direction. This condition normally persists for a few days and then changes back to a more westerly flow.

Occasionally, gradient wind direction shifts to a more southerly flow. This is particularly common during July and August when the summer "monsoon" conditions become established. Most of the precipitation during the summer months is the result of this southerly flow of sub-tropical moisture.

Local, diurnal winds flow up and down the major river drainages in the Forest. The Colorado, Roar- ing Fork, Eagle, Frying Pan, White, and Blue River drainages all experience up-canyon winds during the day and a down-slope flow at night. Due to the East-West orientation of most of these drainages, the up-canyon winds are usually accentuated by the prevailing westerly winds aloft. Down canyon winds at night are relatively light, and night-time inversions in the valleys are common.

1. Existing Sources

The Class I Air Quality areas on the WRNF are located down-wind from several major emitting sources located in western Colorado and eastern Utah. These sources include seven coal-fired power generation plants. In 1986 Unocal Energy Mining Division obtained a PSD permit for production of 10,000 barrels of oil per day at the Parachute facility. This represented the production level for Phase I of their proposed project. The Unocal plant closed in 1991.

Annual emissions from existing major sources are shown in Table 4, page II-15. The annual emissions for the Colorado plants are based on 1997 emission data obtained from the Colorado State Department of Health. The data for the Utah plants are based on the 1996 emission data obtained from the Utah Air Quality Division.

Industrial and urban zones of southern California and Mexico are additional emissions sources that may affect atmospheric deposition and visibility in the southwestern United States. De- pending upon the strength and direction of prevailing winds, a certain percentage of deposition and visibility reduction in the WRNF may result from emissions originating in southern California and Mexico.

II-10

TABLE 4 Major Source Emissions

Source/Location Annual Emissions - Tons per Year PM10 SO2 NO2 CO Public Service CO, Cameo 47 2,737 2,808 63 Mesa County, CO

Public Service CO, Hayden 771 16,025 14,336 432 Routt County, CO

Tri State Generation, Craig 336 9,235 13,718 432 Moffat County, CO

Pacific Corporation 16 4,918 3,345 164 Carbon County, Utah

Pacific Corporation 1,440 6,279 19,242 1,049 Hunter plant/Emery County, Utah

Pacific Corporation 856 12,630 15,206 729 Huntington plant/Huntington, UT

Bonanza One 161 996 7,042 339 Moon Lake Plant/Uintah County, UT

In addition to the major sources listed above, there are a number of smaller sources located within and adjacent to the Forest. The annual emissions from these smaller sources are summarized by county in Table 5. These values are also based on 1997 emissions data from the Colorado State Department of Health.

II-15 TABLE 5 Non-Major Source Emissions

Source/Location Annual Emissions - Tons per Year PM10 SO2 NO2 CO Delta County 170.6 3.0 46.3 37.6

Eagle County 141.2 2.2 211.2 45.1

Garfield County 568.6 35.4 1520.5 585.0

Gunnison County 224.4 4.0 25.9 6.4

Mesa County 365.9 99.7 728.4 235.8

Pitkin County 3.6 0.0 1.2 0.1

Rio Blanco County 104.6 20.7 3395.8 1386.7

Routt County 980.5 4.0 8.0 4.4

Summit County 124.4 1.0 0.07 5.2

The effect, if any, of these existing sources on air quality related values in the Forest’s three Class I Air Quality Areas is not known at this time. Additional baseline information is needed to determine whether or not any degradation is occurring. However, the orographic effect of the White River Plateau, the Elk Mountains, and the Gore Range increases the amount of precipitation at the higher elevations. It is logical to assume that this same effect increases the amount of wet deposition of pollutants in the Class I Areas located at these higher elevations.

A monitoring strategy to obtain more information is detailed in Section II. D. of this plan. The importance of collecting air quality related data was recently underscored with a court order requiring the Hayden Power Plant to install 140 million dollars worth of pollution controls. This was the result of a suit brought on by the Sierra Club and the EPA in response to the Forest Service’s certification of visibility impairment. This declaration of adverse impacts came following review of 3 years of visibility data which strongly implicated the plant’s role in reducing visibility in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness.

In addition to reduced visibility, monitoring of other air quality related values also indicated a strong correlation between the plant’s emissions and the Wilderness area’s significant increases in acidic deposition. Acid deposition data collected in the Flat Tops Wilderness and at the NADP site on Sunlight Peak helped determine that the source(s) of acid deposition in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness were local.

II-16 Of the three Class I areas on the Forest, the Flat Tops may be particularly susceptible to pollutants from sources located to the northwest, west, southwest, and south of this Wilderness. The Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness may be vulnerable to pollutant sources from the west, southwest, and south. With the prevailing westerly winds, both these wilderness areas provide a sheltering effect from pollutants to the downwind Eagle’s Nest Wilderness. Visibility data for the latter two Wilder- ness areas supports this assumption. The standard visual range (90th percentile) is approximately 262 miles for the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness and approximately 314 miles for Eagle’s Nest Wilderness.

During summer "monsoon" conditions with a southerly air flow, air quality on the WRNF may be affected by emission sources in southern California, Mexico, and the four corners area of New Mexico and Arizona. The Arizona/New Mexico sources include the Four Corners Power Plant (New Mexico), the San Juan Generating Station (New Mexico), the Navajo Steam Generating Plant (Arizona), and the Magma Copper Smelter (San Miguel, Arizona). Emissions from these sources are potentially significant because most of the Forest’s summer precipitation results from the southerly flow of "monsoon" moisture.

Atmospheric deposition from these sources may occur in all three of the Forest’s Class I air quality areas. However, because of the southerly air flow that is necessary for transport of the pollutants, the Flat Tops and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wildernesses have the greatest potential to capture this deposition.

Major wildfire events in the western United States may also impact air quality in the WRNF. This was evidenced in 1985 (southern California fires), 1987 (northern California and Oregon), 1988 (Yellowstone Park and Montana) and 1994 (Washington and Idaho). Smoke from these fires reduced visibility in all of the Forest’s Class I areas. However, since wildland fires are considered to be a natural phenomenon, the smoke is not necessarily a negative impact on wilderness values.

2. Potential Future Impacts

Deposits of coal, natural gas, and oil shale are located to the southwest, west, and northwest of the Forest’s Class I Air Quality Areas. Future development of these resources poses a potential threat to air quality related values throughout the Forest.

Oil Shale Development

Some of the richest oil shales in the world are located in the Tertiary Green River Formation deposits in the Piceance Creek basin of western Colorado and the Uinta Basin of eastern Utah (Soholt and Wiedenbaum 1981). Both of these deposits are located immediately to the west of the WRNF. Dur- ing the energy crisis of the 1970’s and early 80’s, intensive development of these deposits was initiated. At the peak of the activity in 1981, a total of fourteen projects were proposed in western Colo- rado and eastern Utah (Figure 2 and Table 6). It was estimated that by 1985 the total average emission rate from the projects on-line would be: SOx - 6,454 tons/year, NOx - 24,078 t/y, and TSP - 6,850 t/y (Fox, Haddow, and Murphy 1981). Total emission rates were expected to increase steadily through 2003. Deposition of some of these pollutants in the Flat Tops Wilderness was anticipated by most researchers.

II-17 All of this became somewhat academic when the oil shale development collapsed in 1982. How- ever, the deposits remain a potentially rich source of energy, and there is a continuing level of interest in their development.

In 1984, Chevron applied for a PSD permit to construct and operate a 100,000 barrel/day oil shale mine and retort facility 26 miles north of Debeque, Colorado. A conditional permit was offered requiring that NOx be reduced by 80% to prevent deposition in the Flat Tops Class I area. Chevron refused the permit under that condition.

As previously discussed, Unocal obtained a PSD permit in 1986 for Phase I of their oil shale development project with a production level of 10,000 barrels per day. The Unocal plant closed in 1991.

In February 1990, Occidental Oil proposed a demonstration project to produce 1200 barrels of shale oil per day at the Cb tract in the Piceance Basin. This proposal was for a modified in-situ process with co-generation of electricity. As of 1997, this project has not been carried out. However, should efforts be made to reinstate the proposal, a PSD permit will probably be required.

With the increasing demand for energy, the decline in petroleum reserves and other favorable economic barometers, renewed interest in developing the area’s oil shale deposits may still occur, necessitating active participation in the process by the Forest’s and Region’s Air Resources Program.

Coal Development

Significant deposits of coal are located along the western edge of the Forest and to the northwest in the Craig area. Within the past five years, there have been various proposals for construction of additional coal-fired power generation plants in the vicinity of the WRNF.

These included Mid-Continent Resources’ proposed co-generation facility near Carbondale. With an anticipated annual production of 80 megawatts of electricity, a PSD permit would have been necessary. The plant would have utilized waste coal from Mid-Continent’s mines at Redstone. However, the company has since declared bankruptcy and has discontinued mining operations at Redstone.

Another proposal was from Eastside Energy Corporation, who had proposed an 80 megawatt power generation facility near Silt. This company also encountered financial and local permitting problems, and the project appears doubtful at this time. There was no estimate of potential emissions. Should the proposal be reinstated, a PSD permit would probably be required.

Although these proposals did not progress beyond the initial stages, the coal resource remains along with the potential for its development.

II-18

Table 6. Proposed Oil Shale Developments, Colorado and Utah1

Oil Shale Project Lease Site (Operators) Location2 Process Production Rate (barrels/day) 1982 1985 1990 1995

Cathedral Bluffs Oil Shale Co. A 38% Lurgi -- 30,000 100,000 100,000 Lease Tract C-b 62% MIS (Occidentals, Tenneco) Project Rio Blanco B 100% Lurgi -- 45,600 76,000 135,000 Lease Tract C-a Gulf, Standard (Indiana) Geokinetics, Inc. C Occidental MIS 5,000 15,000 50,000 50,000 Uinta Basin Equity Oil D Bx in-situ ------Naval Oil Shale Reserve Piceance Basin E Paraho -- -- 28,000 50,000 Union Oil/Long Ridge H Union B 9,500 30,000 50,000 100,000 Piceance Basin Colony/Tosco Parachute Creek I Tosco/Colony/Sand Wash -- 38,400 46,200 46,200 Piceance Basin (Exxon, Tosco) Tosco Sand Wash J Tosco/Colony/Sand Wash -- 23,100 46,200 46,200 Uinta Basin White River Project K Paraho ------90,000 Lease Site U-a, U-b (Phillips, Sohio, Sunoco) Chevron Oil L Union B -- 15,600 66,600 100,000 Piceance Basin Superior Oil M Superior -- 6,700 12,000 12,000 Piceance Basin Mobil Oil N Union B -- -- 50,000 91,500 Piceance Basin Carter Oil O Union B -- -- 60,000 60,000 Piceance Basin Cities Service P ------Total 14,000 204,400 585,000 880,900

1Source: Anderson, G.E., J.R. Doyle, D.A. Latimer, C.S. Liu, M.A.Wojcik, and J.A. Johnson. 1981. Air quality impacts of anticipated development in oil shale operations in western Colorado and eastern Utah. April 2, 1981. Report by Systems Applications, Inc., San Rafael, CA.

2 Codes match with those of Figure 2. Other Developments

A wallboard plant was constructed in the early 1990’s in Gypsum, Colorado. Its estimated annual emissions from a 1997 emissions inventory (Colorado State Air Pollution Control District) are:

PM10 - 47 tons NO2 - 210 tons CO - 44 tons VOC - 20 tons/year.

Annual emissions of SO2 are less than one ton because the plant uses natural gas. A PSD permit was not required because the company reached agreement with the State Department of Health that pollution controls and/or reduced operating hours will be part of the conditions of their State permit as a "minor" source.

II-21 C. Air Quality Related Values and Sensitive Receptors

Air quality related values (AQRV's) are general features or properties of an area that have the potential to be changed by air pollution. Their categories include: visibility, odor, water, soils, flora, fauna, and cultural resources. A sensitive receptor is an element of an AQRV that is most sensitive to or first modified by air pollution. Forest components were selected as sensitive receptors on the basis of the following criteria:

1. Known or suspected sensitivity to atmospheric pollutants.

2. Availability of logistically manageable, cost effective sampling and analysis methods.

3. Availability of modeling capabilities for predicting the effects of proposed increases in emissions on the sensitive receptor. Generally accepted models exist for predicting changes in contrast (visibility) of an identified viewpath and alkalinity (water chemistry) resulting from changes in emissions. Models for predicting changes in other areas also exist; however, many of them are in the developmental or prototype stages and need to be approved by the research community before they will be of much use in the PSD process.

There are no archaeological sites on the WRNF known to be affected by any existing or proposed pollutants or deposition.

Sensitive Receptors for the White River National Forest

Flora

Lichen communities as represented by permanent study plots, which have been established in the Flat Tops Wilderness (Hale 1982; Nash 1992). A cursory inventory and elemental analyses of lichens occurring in Flat Tops, Eagle's Nest, and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Areas was performed in 1994 (Jackson et.al. 1996). Permanent study plots may also be established in the latter two wilderness areas at some time in the future.

Vascular plant information from the University of Wyoming will be utilized for the Flat Tops Wilderness (Vanderhorst 1992 and 1993), and information from the University of Colorado will be utilized for the Eagles Nest Wilderness (Hogan 1992).

Fauna

Plankton Plankton communities of identified lakes may be sampled in the future but are currently a low priority.

Amphibians Incidental occurrences of several amphibian species have been recorded on the Forest. Chorus frogs have been sighted throughout the Forest including all three Class I wildernesses. The Bo- real toad and Tiger salamander, both Forest Service, Region 2 sensitive species have been sighted in all three Class I

II-22 wilderness areas.

Water

(Soils in the following lake basins are sensitive receptors.)

Flat Tops Wilderness The water chemistries of Ned Wilson, Oyster, and Upper Island Lakes.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness The water chemistries of Upper Moon, Capitol, and Avalanche Lakes.

Eagles Nest Wilderness The water chemistries of Booth and Upper Willow Lakes.

Visibility

The following Class I sensitive receptors to visibility were developed by the Ranger Districts in response to a 1993 request from the State of Colorado APCD to identify "scenic and important vistas" for all National Forest lands in Colorado.

Flat Tops Wilderness The sight path from Blair Mountain to Shingle Peak. The sight path from Ripple Creek Pass to Trappers Peak. The sight path from Blair Mountain to Flat Top Mountain.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness The sight path from McClure Pass to Mount Sopris. The sight path from Sunlight Ski Area (Compass Peak) to Capitol Peak. The sight path from Ajax Mountain to Mount Sopris (camera site).

Eagles Nest Wilderness The sight path from Vail Ski Area to West Peak (camera site). The sight path from Ute Pass to Mount Powell. The sight path from Copper Mountain Ski Area to Red & White Mtn.

Atmospheric Conditions Currently Monitored

In addition to the sensitive receptors identified above, certain atmospheric conditions must be monitored if changes in the physical, chemical, or biological condition of the sensitive receptors are to be linked to human-caused changes in air quality. Atmospheric conditions monitored on the WRNF are:

Wet Deposition Precipitation chemistry at NADP/NTN sites at Sunlight Peak and Fourmile Park in cooperation with EPA.

II-23 Wet deposition at Ned Wilson Lake in cooperation with USGS.

Fine Aerosol Concentrations Aerosol monitoring occurs via a Module A IMPROVE type sampler located near the top of Ajax Mountain.

II-24 D. Monitoring of Air Quality Related Values

The Forest Service is responsible for preventing degradation of its Wilderness ecosystems as di- rected by both the Wilderness Act and the Clean Air Act. These laws require the Forest Service to be able to predict any potential adverse change to AQRVs before the degradation actually occurs. Monitoring of AQRV’s thus has two main objectives: to determine general ecosystem health related to ambient air quality conditions, and to obtain sufficient data for use in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit process. In addition, information on AQRV’s helps the Forest disclose, in NEPA documents, air resource impacts of its own and permitted activities (i.e. prescribed burns, ski area development) to sensitive receptors in Wilderness areas.

There is no standard suite of information, which is used in the PSD process. The information presented at any given hearing will be determined by the issues and concerns relevant to the proposed project and the sensitive receptors that are judged to be at risk. To be effective, pertinent data for all sensitive receptors must be accumulated and assessed; the data presented must be of high quality in order to sustain critical review. To date, available information currently includes visibility for the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness and aquatic ecosystems for the Flat Tops Wilderness. Other data which include lake chemistry (for Maroon Bells/Snowmass and Eagle’s Nest), lichens, wet deposition, and visibility (Eagle’s Nest) are limited in sample sizes and therefore insufficient to be conclusive.

Provided in this section is a brief description of each AQRV identified in the Forest’s three Class I areas. Under each AQRV is also a review of any existing information, a monitoring strategy and a discussion regarding the potential uses of relevant data and/or information. The limits of acceptable change for sensitive receptors can be found in Section E.

Ideally this monitoring program will undergo review every two years. This will allow formal revisions to be made in methods, sensitive receptors, limits of acceptable change, data handling, and budget considerations. The review will also provide an opportunity to determine the plan’s consistency with its purpose and will allow for changes required by statutory amendment.

A Monitoring Action Plan is included in Section VI of this plan.

1. Flora

Lichens

Description

The lichen community of the WRNF is identified as a sensitive receptor to atmospheric deposition. It is well established that certain lichens are sensitive to, and can serve as monitors of air pollution (Ferry 1973; Hawksworth 1976; Lawrey 1984; Nash 1988). Many physiological and structural factors contribute to this:

1) Lichens have no protective cuticle to serve as a barrier to material from the atmosphere;

2) They absorb most of their nutrients and water directly from the atmosphere;

II-25 3) They have a high retention capacity and accumulate elements;

4) They are long-lived;

5) They have a large surface to mass ratio.

As with any other component of an ecosystem, a particular assemblage of species forms a characteristic community dependent on environmental conditions. This assemblage can change when stressed.

Recent research has explored many atmospheric pollution effects in sensitive lichen species. These can include: Visible changes in thallus color; decrease in thallus size; plasmolysis of algal cells; de- creases in respiratory; photosynthetic and nitrogen fixation rates; decrease in growth rate; damage to plasma membrane integrity; increase in cytoplasmic concentration of mineral elements including sulfur; chlorophyll degradation; and changes in thallus pH, conductivity, and potassium efflux.

The analytical methods to determine these effects on lichens include: measurements of photosynthetic, respiratory, and nitrogen fixation rates; determination of chlorophyll content by fluorescence; electron microscopical studies of ultrastructure; conductivity tests; and elemental analysis of finely ground thalli by ICP and x-ray fluorescence.

Lichen taxonomy is complex. To initially inventory the lichen community, the assistance of an ex- pert is required. Subsequent inventory may be conducted with Forest Service field personnel if thorough documentation and photographs are provided following the initial field survey. Appendix B provides a listing of pollution sensitive lichens including those identified in the Flat Tops Wilder- ness.

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

A baseline study of the lichens in the Flat Tops Wilderness was completed in July-August 1982 (Hale 1982). Twenty-one collecting sites were surveyed and inventoried and about 1000 lichen collections made. A total of 137 species was collected, representing 16 fruticose species, 47 foliose, and 74 crustose. Seven species are designated as indicator species, either because of their known sensitivity to air pollution or because of their value as bioaccumulators.

Twelve permanent lichen study plots were established at five major sites in the northeastern and southwestern sections of the Flat Tops. These 20 X 25 cm plots were documented with color photographs from which species composition and coverage can be determined and used in future comparisons.

Twenty-six mass samples of the important lichen indicator species were collected for elemental analysis. An elemental analysis was used to determine the concentrations of airborne pollutants that have been absorbed by the lichens. Lead and zinc as well as sulfur all occur in uniformly low concentration (lead 19-76 ppm, zinc 29-85 ppm, and sulfur 0.11-0.16%) over the whole region.

A floristic study of lichens in the Flat Tops Wilderness was also conducted in 1992, visiting 17 of the 21 sites visited by Hale in 1982. The 1992 study identified 52 additional species, increasing the total number of lichen species identified in the Flat Tops to 189 (Nash, et.al. 1992).

II-26 The twelve permanent lichen study plots established in 1982 were re-investigated and re- photographed in 1992. In addition, thirty-two samples were collected for elemental analysis. The 1992 samples were of the same species and collected at the same sites as those collected in 1982.

Vigor and lichen species diversity in 1992 appeared to be equal to, or greater, than the 1982 survey. There was no indication that air quality has had a deleterious effect on lichens in the Flat Tops Wil- derness. The 1992 elemental analysis indicates that several of the heavy elements such as copper, lead, iron, and boron have decreased while zinc and manganese have increased. Aluminum, calcium, magnesium, and sodium showed little significant change over the ten year period (Nash et.al. 1992).

Monitoring Strategy

Flat Tops Wilderness

The following intervals for resurveys for the Flat Tops Tops Wilderness are recommended with the qualification that they be accelerated or extended if anthropogenic pollution increases warrant more frequent monitoring.

1) Elemental analysis: Every 8-10 years. Next scheduled analysis should be in 2000-2002.

2) Permanent lichen study plot photographs: Every 8-10 years (next examination: 2000-2002). These are important as a quantitative backup to the floristic survey, and will enable documentation of growth rates and natural changes in coverage and community structure.

3) Lichen species inventory: Every 10-15 years. Later surveys might be initiated to add more ex- act data on frequency and coverage of the lichens.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness

Limited inventory was performed in 1994 by Linda Geiser in order to compare Mt. Zirkel lichens with other areas in Colorado and Wyoming (Jackson 1996). A comprehensive lichen inventory is needed to adequately determine presence of air pollution sensitive species.

Eagles Nest Wilderness

Lichens have been identified as a sensitive receptor here, but lichen inventory and monitoring will be dependent on results of the Flat Tops Tops and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness’ surveys. If a trend in lichen tissue accumulation of pollutants with time or space is established in these studies, lichen monitoring in the Eagles Nest Wilderness will be initiated. Limited inventory was performed in 1994 by Linda Geiser (Jackson 1996).

Vascular Plants

Information on the presence, abundance, and distribution of vascular plants is useful baseline data to determine presence of plants, which have known sensitivities to air pollutants (NOx, SO2, and ozone). Further field monitoring of sensitive species can then be planned if warranted.

II-27 Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

No complete lists of vascular plants have been compiled for the WRNF National Forest. The Rocky Mountain Herbarium at the University of Wyoming conducted a floristic study in the Flat Tops Tops Wilderness in 1991 (Vanderhorst 1992 and 1993). The survey includes herbaceous plants, shrubs, and trees with an emphasis on rare and endangered species.

The University of Colorado, Boulder herbarium conducted a floristic study in the Eagles Nest Wil- derness in 1990 and 1991 (Hogan 1992). Emphasis was also on rare and endangered species.

An overview of the sensitivities to air pollutants of vascular plants found in Colorado was prepared for Region 2 in 1990 (Bunin 1990).

Monitoring Strategy

Little information is currently available on the sensitivity of alpine and subalpine species to air pollution. However, the few currently available publications along with future research may reveal more information on species sensitivities.

Flat Tops Tops Wilderness

Utilize the information from the University of Wyoming study along with any existing information on plant sensitivities to pollution. The Forest Air Specialist will compile the information from a) floristic surveys, b) any available lists of sensitivities of alpine/subalpine plants to air pollution, and c) the updated list of threatened, endangered or sensitive plants on the WRNF to determine which vascular plants may need to be resurveyed and monitored for potential pollutant impacts.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness

No floristic surveys or monitoring are planned at this time.

Eagles Nest Wilderness

Utilize the information from the University of Colorado Herbarium. The Forest Air Specialist will compile the information from a) floristic surveys, b) any available lists of sensitivities of alpine/subalpine plants to air pollution, and c) the updated list of threatened, endangered or sensitive plants on the WRNF to determine which vascular plants may need to be resurveyed and monitored for potential pollutant impacts.

Potential Uses of Data/Information for Flora

Information about lichens and vascular plants will be used to address the following questions that would be used in the regulatory process:

1) Is there a trend in accumulation of trace metals in lichens?

2) What is the natural variation and current condition of sensitive flora in the WRNF?

II-28 3) Will increases in deposition affect the condition of any sensitive flora?

Terrestrial biota can be impacted by changes in acidic deposition and air chemistry, but the effects are difficult to quantify and in some cases are unknown. Baseline monitoring must be conducted for several years to determine the range of natural variation. Additional information will be needed from the research community to determine response to incremental changes in deposition and air chemistry.

Plankton

Description

Recent research has indicated that phytoplankton (free-floating algae) and zooplankton can serve as indicators of acidification (Sprules 1975; Yan 1980; Confer 1983; Keller 1984; Havens 1985; Schin- dler 1985; Yan 1985; Price 1985; Malley 1986; Mills 1986; Schindler 1987). Plankton are widely dispersed, free-floating microscopic organisms that reproduce rapidly. These characteristics often allow changes in response to ecosystem stress to be seen and quantified at an earlier stage of perturbation than with larger organisms. Certain crustaceous zooplankters are very sensitive to environmental stress; a single female of Daphnia species has the potential to leave 1310 descendants in 60 days, yet a minor imbalance of the system can lead to sudden local disappearance of the species (Davies, 1955). Phytoplankton can display significant change in species composition in as little as two weeks (Biological Methods Panel Committee on Oceanography, 1969).

In addition to species changes, acidification may affect the food chain of a lake. Phytoplankton are primary producers in the food chain and zooplankton are intermediary. Disruptions in these portions of the food chain may lead to widespread injury at upper trophic levels.

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

Research into plankton community dynamics of high altitude lakes is lacking. Studies to quantify and identify taxa are ongoing in lakes in the Wind River Range Wyoming, Rocky Mountain National Park, and in the Snowy Range, Wyoming (McKnight 1986).

It is difficult to make comparisons between studies because interspecies variability is so great (Davies 1955; Price 1985). Phytoplankton and zooplankton samples were collected from Ned Wil- son, Oyster, and Upper Island Lakes in the Flat Tops Tops Wilderness by the USGS under contract to the EPA in 1983 (Baldigo and Baker Undated). The biotic data gathered may be useful in comparing to any future samples gathered but does not really provide a "baseline" because several years of sample collection are necessary to learn the range of natural population variability by season and by year. Setting firm objectives and consultation with experts in this field will be required before monitoring of phytoplankton and/or zooplankton is performed.

Monitoring Strategy

Flat Tops Tops Wilderness, Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness, and Eagles Nest Wilderness

Currently, plankton sampling is a low priority because of logistical drawbacks and because of the uncertainty for use of this data in the PSD regulatory process. Plankton samples must be taken from

II-29 the lake’s center; thus, rafts and associated equipment would need to be packed in or cached in the wilderness.

2. Fauna

Amphibians

Description

The distribution and breeding success of amphibian populations can be affected by low pH (Karns 1984; Clark 1986a 1986b; Freda and Dunson 1986; Gascon and Planass 1986; Leuven et al. 1986). Five species of amphibians including tiger salamander, western boreal toad, chorus frogs, leopard frogs, and wood frogs are potentially present in some or all of the three Class I wilderness areas on the Forest. Amphibian populations seem to be declining in Western Colorado, but it is uncertain if the decline is associated with human-caused environmental acidification or natural fluctuations in population (Corn 1989).

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

The Fish and Wildlife Service (F&WLS) has been monitoring amphibian populations over much of Colorado but has not yet done any work on the WRNF. Population surveys done by F&WLS have generally documented presence/absence of breeding and non-breeding populations. The Colorado Natural Heritage Program holds a list of Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive species in Colorado. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has compiled information on amphibians into a GIS data base. The information is operated, maintained and available via the Division’s Grand Junction office (970- 248-7175).

Tiger salamanders have been observed in most of the lakes in the Flat Tops Wilderness (Larry Green, Colorado Division of Wildlife). Chorus frogs are just as numerous (Rachael Reinhart, personal communication, 4/1/97). Boreal toads have been sighted in the Flat Tops Tops, Eagle’s Nest and Maroon Bells/Snowmass wilderness areas. More information is needed to document the extent and distribution of amphibians in lakes in the WRNF wilderness areas.

Research at the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory indicates that the tiger salamander is sensitive to pH values less than 6.0 (Harte 1989). In Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, 60 to 100 percent of tiger salamander eggs were dead or unviable in ponds with ph 5.0 or less. Between ph 5.0 and 6.0, 40 percent of the eggs were dead or unviable. Research indicates that these eggs will hatch slower at pH less than 6.0 and subsequent growth will be inhibited as well (Turk 1997).

Monitoring Strategy

There is some debate within the research community as to whether declines in salamander populations are due to acid deposition or other causes. A consensus on how to monitor for cause and effect has also not been reached. Regardless of the reasons for recent population declines, presence/absence surveys should be conducted at sensitive lakes in conjunction with lake chemistry monitoring. Monitoring of salamanders and other amphibians is considered a medium priority. In- formation gathered in such amphibian surveys should be reported to the Colorado Division of Wild- life.

II-30 The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Ecology Research Center, Fort Collins, has expressed interest in a cooperative amphibian survey for White River NF wilderness areas. Whether or not such a study is initiated, assistance from the USF&WS will be requested to train Forest Service personnel in simple amphibian survey techniques. The Colorado Division of Wildlife may also be able to provide training assistance.

Flat Tops Tops, Maroon Bells/Snowmass and Eagle’s Nest Wildernesses

Presence/absence surveys on lakes monitored for water chemistry will be noted to document presence of salamanders and other amphibians.

Potential Uses of Data/Information

Information about aquatic biota will be used to address the following questions:

1 What is the natural variation and current condition of sensitive aquatic species;

2) What changes in diversity and abundance of amphibians might be expected to occur with changes in aquatic conditions if deposition were to increase?

Aquatic biota can be profoundly impacted by changes in acidification; however, these effects are difficult to quantify and document. Baseline monitoring must often be conducted for several years to determine the range of species variability under natural conditions. Only when this is understood can change due to acidic deposition or other pollution impacts be assessed or predicted. Although few models are available for predicting impacts, trends can be defined using standard statistical techniques. Geographic information systems may be useful for mapping and assessing distribution information.

Benthic Lake Fauna

Description

Benthic lake fauna are not a Forest AQRV. They are mentioned here because a population of inver- tebrates were sampled in 1995 by Barry Baldigo of the USGS (pers. comm, 4/2/97) using an Ekman sampler. The sample, while not processed as yet, has been archived in Mr. Baldigo’s New York office.

Knowledge of the benthic lake fauna is among the poorest of those organisms found in fresh waters (Wetzel 1979). They have been observed to be sensitive to low pH conditions and can therefore be used to monitor possible effects of air pollution in high elevation ecosystems (Fox 1987).

II-31 3. Water

Lake Chemistry

Description

Relatively unreactive bedrock, thin soils, and a large amount of precipitation combine to produce many lakes in each of the three wildernesses that are sensitive to acidic deposition. The Environ- mental Protection Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, and the WRNF (in conjunction with the Aspen Wilderness Workshop) have all carried out lake sampling programs in the past decade. These programs were all designed to characterize the lake chemistry and sensitivity to acidic deposition on selected Wilderness areas of the White River NF. These surveys have been instrumental in identifying current condition and potential-for-change of several wilderness lakes.

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

The EPA Western Lakes Survey (WLS) in 1985 included lakes from 6 of 7 White River NF Wilder- ness areas (Appendix C). The WLS was a one time stratified random sampling effort designed to provide large scale regional information about lake chemistry. The data did not give detailed information about the processes occurring over time in any one lake but did provide some indication of the buffering abilities of the sampled lakes. Of the 18 lakes sampled in the six wildernesses, 10 were considered "sensitive" with alkalinities less than 200 ueq/l. Such lakes have limited ability to buffer any incoming acidity. None of these lakes are currently acidic.

The U.S. Geological Survey has been conducting extensive lake chemistry work in the Flat Tops Tops Wilderness since 1981. This work has contributed to understanding natural long term variation in lake chemistry. Ned Wilson Lake was identified in the Western Lake Survey and in an earlier study by USGS as the most sensitive lake sampled in the Flat Tops Tops (Turk and Adams 1983). It has a low buffering capacity, high flushing rates, and no watershed sulfate sources, meaning that sulfate levels in this lake are likely to come from man-caused emissions (Campbell, Turk and Spahr 1990).

The objective of this ongoing monitoring effort is to determine the natural variance and possible trends in chemistry of precipitation for lakes and springs in the Flat Tops Tops Wilderness. Another use for the data is as a comparison to similar data in the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness which was recently determined to be significantly impacted by air pollution from the Hayden Power Plant. Both wilderness areas share the same regional air. However, local sources of air pollution differ between the two areas. Therefore, data from the Flat Tops Wilderness can be compared to that from the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness to determine if local air pollution impacts are significant to the latter area.

To accomplish these objectives, permission has been granted through the Regional Forester for the installation and maintenance of monitoring instruments in the wilderness at Ned Wilson Lake as well as for access by helicopter to the lake when there is snow cover. The instruments being used are as follows:

1) Belfort weighing bucket gage records the amount of precipitation continuously. These data are used to calculate the amount of water entering the watershed.

II-32 2) Meteorological stations and data logger continuously measure wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, solar radiation, and air temperature. These data are used to calculate evaporation of water from the lake in the preparation of mass-balances of water for the watershed.

3) Wetfall collector is used to collect samples of rain or snow during June-September. These data are used to calculate the amount of solutes deposited by wetfall and to detect trends in rain and snow chemistry.

4) Bulk collector is used throughout the year to measure precipitation chemistry especially in the fall, winter, and spring when the wetfall collector is not in use. Samples are collected every 2 weeks during the summer and every 8 weeks during the rest of the year.

5) A flume and automatic recorder continuously monitor the amount of water leaving the lake. These data are used in determining how rapidly the lake volume turns over, and to calculate the mass balance of solutes for the watershed. The measurements are made in June-September when surface water flow is possible.

6) A temperature recorder with a submersible data logger continuously monitors lake temperature throughout the year. These data are used in computing lake evaporation.

Additionally, samples are collected from Ned Wilson Lake once every two weeks during the July- September period and approximately once every 8 weeks during the period of ice cover (October- June). Samples are collected at mid-depth in this non-stratified lake using a vanDorn sampler from a raft, or during ice-cover through holes drilled in the ice. During summer, samples are also collected from an unnamed spring and a small lake that is tributary to Ned Wilson lake.

The EPA (through contract to USGS) conducted lake chemistry studies on three Flat Tops Wilder- ness lakes during the latter half of August in 1982 and 1983. The lakes sampled were Ned Wilson, Oyster, and Upper Island. In addition to water chemistry analysis, phytoplankton, periphyton, zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, and sediments were sampled. This work was not published, but summary data is available in draft format (Baldigo and Baker Undated).

The Wilderness Water Quality Monitoring Project, jointly sponsored by the Aspen Wilderness Workshop and the Aspen Ranger District, was initiated in 1985. Initially, 42 lakes were in the sampling program that spanned the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness, Hunter-Frying Pan Wilderness and the west portion of the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness. Sampling during these earlier years was sporadic (i.e. not all lakes were sampled every year and lakes were not always sampled at the same time each year). Lake samples were tested for pH, conductivity, and alkalinity. More than half of the lakes sampled since the program began showed alkalinities less than 200ueq/l, indicating limited abilities of these lakes to buffer any incoming acidic deposition.

The data collected assisted in determining more sensitive lakes suitable for long term monitoring. These include three in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness and two in the Collegiate Peaks Wil- derness which are sampled annually under uniform protocol established for Region 2 Forests. The regional protocol was standardized in 1991 for water sampling and analyses. This allowed for a degree of accuracy and consistency above that of prior years’ monitoring efforts.

II-33 A volunteer from the University of Colorado Herbarium collected lake "grab samples" for water chemistry analysis from 5 lakes in the Eagles Nest Wilderness in 1990. Synoptic lake samples were taken by Forest personnel between 1993 and 1995 from 13 lakes, two of which were chosen as sensitive lakes suitable for long term monitoring.

Data for wilderness lakes currently identified for long term monitoring are presented in Appendix C. Appendix D contains protocols and equipment needs for these lakes. Protocols that applied to earlier short term and long term wilderness lake monitoring efforts are available in Ranger District files.

Monitoring Strategy

Water chemistry monitoring is a long term commitment and must be funded accordingly. Monitor- ing must continue on an annual basis in order to collect sufficient data over time to detect trends.

Flat Tops Wilderness

Lakes identified as sensitive receptors are: Ned Wilson, Oyster, and Upper Island. These lakes were selected because they represent an East-West transect across the Wilderness and because of their low buffering ability. Because of the USGS’ long term monitoring program at Ned Wilson Lake, continued Forest Service support of monitoring at this lake is a high priority. Sampling of Oyster and Up- per Island lakes will be initiated as funds become available.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness

Lakes identified as sensitive receptors are: Upper Moon, Capitol, and Avalanche. These lakes were selected because of their low buffering ability. Each lake is sampled three times each summer following Region 2 long term lake monitoring protocol. This monitoring program, which began in 1991, is part of a cooperative effort with the Aspen Wilderness Workshop.

Eagles Nest Wilderness

Lakes identified as sensitive receptors are: Booth and Upper Willow Lakes. These lakes were selected because of their low buffering capacity. Each lake is sampled three times each summer. Cur- rently, the Holy Cross Ranger District staff is responsible for this monitoring. Long term monitoring, which began in 1996, follows Region 2 long term lake monitoring protocol.

4. Visibility

Description

Wilderness can be visually impaired by pollution in three ways: By "uniform haze" (pollutants from one or several sources are well mixed in the atmosphere and obscure the view uniformly), "layered haze" (pollutants from one or several sources appear as a layer because of poor atmospheric mixing conditions), or "plume" (pollutants appear as a continuous plume that originates from a single source). Visibility models widely used by States and the EPA deal with plume effects only. Haze is a more difficult impact to model because many small sources can cause cumulative problems over time. The Forest Service seeks to protect wilderness from all relevant visibility impacts

II-34 including regional haze; and therefore, may also use models other than those specifically recommended by States and the EPA.

A view of the scenery through "clean, fresh air" has been shown in several surveys to be the most important wilderness attribute to wilderness users in Colorado (Brown 1977 and 1980; Walsh et al 1981). Providing a natural visual experience is a high priority for Forest Service Region 2.

Pictorial records, such as color slides, can illustrate changes in air quality. The views captured by the cameras are the sensitive receptors. The contrast between a target (e.g. a mountain in the distance) and the horizon is quantified in terms of standard visual range (SVR). This is a standard unit of measure which allows nationwide comparisons in visibility. The benefits of using a camera for visibility measurements include:

* quantitative measurement of visibility conditions (Standard Visual Range)

* visually records non-surface plumes and layered hazes

* required for computer imaging

* links numbers (SVR, Beta extinction, deciviews) to reality

* opportunity for "permanent" archive in CD-ROM

* useful for presentations to laypersons to compare "good" vs. "bad" visibility

* relatively inexpensive

The limitations of using just camera data for visibility monitoring is that a good, dark target is required to measure SVR. Since our wilderness areas are under snow from late fall to early spring, this limits the usefulness of the camera to months when the target is snow free. Additionally, camera data cannot provide source information related to visibility impairment.

A Particulate Sampler measuring fine particulate concentrations should accompany a camera system when it is necessary to determine the cause of any visibility reduction shown by the camera data. By using particulate analysis, it is sometimes possible to identify pollutant sources through source tracers and primary elemental source signatures (Cahill 1984 and 1985).

Visibility impairment is generally expected to be slight in the WRNF Class I wildernesses. How- ever, even a slight increase in particulates can noticeably decrease visual range. It is important to establish a visibility baseline to protect the wilderness from future impairment by air pollution.

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

Air Monitoring for Oil Shale (AMOS) was originated as a two year multi-agency project to collect background visibility/particulate data and air trajectory information. The USGS, USFS, and EPA were involved in this effort. Monitoring was conducted from Fall 1981 to Spring 1983. Two visibility monitoring sites were established west of the Flat Tops Wilderness: 1) Blair Mountain on the west border of Flat Tops and 2) Monument Peak overlooking the Piceance Basin and Parachute

II-35 Creek area. Six stacked filter particulate monitoring sites were established: New Castle, West Rifle, Buford, Browns Park, and two other sites. No formal results or data analyses have been released from the project due to low data recovery caused by the severe snow and temperature conditions experienced during the study. Therefore, this data is not considered to be useful in determining baseline visibility or historical information.

Cathedral Bluffs Oil Shale (Tenneco and Occidental) monitored visibility on Tract CB between 1976 and 1986 using human observations, telephotometers, and cameras along four views. Usually (but not consistently) data were collected every fourth day during "spring" and "fall". Meteorological data was collected at up to 15 sites for varying periods. Different sites collected different parameters including wind speed, wind direction, relative humidity, temperature, precipitation, pressure, solar radiation, and temperature. Potential use of the CB-tract data by the White River Forest is limited due to inconsistent samples and equipment operation. Inconsistencies include different time periods labeled as "spring" for different years and different seasons of data collection used to represent "annual" samples. The QA/QC of the equipment is also unknown.

In 1979, photo points were established at several locations in the Flat Tops and Eagles Nest Wilder- nesses to monitor visibility. Photos were taken on established azimuths to record visual conditions of representative view areas within the wildernesses. Data on the type of cameras used, camera settings, camera lens, filters, film, time, date, temperature, relative humidity, wind conditions, viewing conditions, etc. were recorded. This program for monitoring visibility was discontinued after the first year. However, photos and data for two of the locations in the Flat Tops Wilderness, Shingle Peak, and Sheep Mountain remain on file in the Eagle Ranger District office (File designation: 2320). These photos do not provide "baseline’ data but do give the Forest a general idea of selected visibility conditions nearly two decades ago.

In 1992 a camera and IMRPOVE module A were installed on Aspen Mountain to monitor visibility in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness. The site is the highest (11,200 feet) in the IMPROVE network. The camera alignment is towards Mt. Sopris with the majority of samples taken between June and November of each year. Data recovery varies from year to year depending upong the commitment of the field technician. In 1997, data recovery was good to excellant. The correlation to date between the visibility data from the camera and that from the IMPROVE module is very good.

A camera site was established in 1993 on Vail Ski Mountain to monitor visibility in the Eagle’s Nest Wilderness. The site is located at 10,007 feet and aligned toward West Peak in the Wilderness. Vis- ibility at this site is often the best of those areas monitored in the nation.

Monitoring Strategy

Camera sites must be maintained a minimum of 3-5 years in order to in order to provide useful data. Protocol and equipment needs for camera sites are listed in Appendix E along with visibility data summaries for the camera sites for Eagle’s Nest and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness areas.

Starting in Summer, 1997, the Washington Office discontinued the contract with Air Resources Specialists to scan our photographic slides and provide SVR values for each site. Further camera monitoring will be done on a voluntary basis with slides archived by ARS. Reasons to continue such monitoring include using the site for interpretive programs and/or providing a visual display of an area’s visibility condition.

II-36 Flat Tops Wilderness

Should there be a renewed interest in photographic monitoring of visibility the viewpoints identified as sensitive receptors include: 1) Blair Mountain to Shingle Peak, 2) Ripple Creek Pass to Trappers Peak, and 3) Blair Mountain to Flattop Mountain. These sites were selected because they are popular vistas looking into the Flat Tops Wilderness and can be accessed year round.

Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness

Viewpoints identified as sensitive receptors are: 1) McClure Pass to Mount Sopris, 2) Sunlight Ski Area to Capitol Peak, and 3) Ajax Mountain to Mount Sopris. These sites were selected because the Maroon Bells are nationally known for their scenic beauty and are the most photographed peaks in the nation. The Roaring Fork River and Crystal River corridors are also very popular.

A camera and an IMPROVE "Module A" particulate sampler currently monitor visibility from Ajax Mountain with Mt. Sopris as the camera target. Data from both instruments are presented in Ap- pendix E and will be updated as necessary.

Eagles Nest Wilderness

Viewpoints identified as sensitive receptors are: 1) Vail Ski Area to West Peak, 2) Ute Pass to Mount Powell, and 3) Copper Mountain Ski Area to Red & White Mtn. These viewpoints were selected because they look into the scenic Gore Range and are observed by thousands of skiers every year.

A camera to monitor the Vail Ski Area to West Peak view area was installed in June 1993. Sam- pling frequency is once daily during the winter months and three times daily for late spring through early fall months. Data from the camera are presented in Appendix E and will be updated as necessary.

Potential Uses of Data/Information

The role of visibility monitoring in the regulatory process is to answer questions such as:

1) Would visibility be affected by changes in concentration of particulates, SOx, NO2, NOx, or organic and inorganic carbons? 2) What types of particulates most commonly cause visibility impairment on the Forest?

3) What is the current visibility from the selected viewpoints? How does it change seasonally?

4) What is the median and best (90th percentile) visual range that is representative of wilderness visibility for use in PSD analysis?

II-37 The current SVR value for use in modeling for the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness is 262 km. For Eagle’s Nest, the SVR value is 314 km. These are the 90 percent annual SVR values and are subject to change periodically as more data is collected at these sites.

Models and analysis techniques proposed to address these questions include the following:

Model Name Where Available Model Function/Output PLUVUE II EPA, NPS, State of Assesses frequency and magnitude of vi- CO sual impacts. VISCREEN NPS, State of CO Screening technique for Level I and Level II screening for visual impairment assessments. Output: maximum changes in color and ontrast plus evaluation of these changes for different lines of sight CALPUFF/CALMET EPA A long range transport model capable of estimating pollutant impacts to regional visibility degradation NFSPUFF USFS Models smoke dispersion impacts in complex terrain from prescribed fires. Output includes particulate concentrations at any point located in modeled domain. SASEM USFS A screening model for smoke impacts from prescribed fires. Outputs include maximum concentrations of PM10 and visibility impacts. Best used in simple terrain WINHAZE ARS, USFS Uses scanned visibility photos to estimate potential visual impacts of emissions.

Visibility monitoring is a crucial component of the air quality related values on the WRNF. The camera systems (to determine changes in contrast) and particulate sampling (to determine the causes of visibility reduction) are proven and accepted techniques for monitoring visibility. The data can be used to model possible impacts to visibility. With this information, existing visibility conditions important to Forest users can be maintained and responsibilities set forth by the Clean Air Act and the Wilderness Act can be met.

5. Soils

Description

Soil is a crucial component of the biogeochemical cycling process. Soil can trap or buffer pollutants in runoff water before they enter the aquatic system.

II-38 Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

As part of the Flat Tops Soil Survey project, the Flat Tops Wilderness was surveyed and mapped between 1980 and 1981. The level of mapping within the wilderness area is at an Order 3 (1:24,000). The survey was correlated by USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) in 1986 and needs updating to meet current standards for Forest Service ecological unit inventories.

The Maroon Bells/Snowmass and Eagle’s Nest Wilderness areas were surveyed between 1991 and 1993 as part of the Holy Cross Soil Survey Area project. The level of mapping are at an Order 3 intensity. The Holy Cross Survey meets the standards for Forest Service ecological unit inventories. However, it has not been through a final correlation by the NRCS and remains as a draft document and map.

Monitoring Strategy

Flat Tops, Maroon Bells/Snowmass, and Eagles Nest Wildernesses

Buffering ability and present condition of the soils in each area should be assessed to determine what influence they may have on lake chemistry.

Size of lake basin and bedrock material are absolute minimum data requirements needed to estimate the buffering ability of soil. Acquiring this information is a high priority and can be documented as part of the lake chemistry sampling program.

Assessing the present condition of the soils is a medium priority. Data needed to assess present condition of soils relative to buffering ability include: soil mineralogy, identification of soil hori- zons, metal and organic matter content, pH, effective depth, texture, bulk density, porosity, drainage, and percent coarse material. To establish the sensitivity of the soils in the basin, the sulfate absorption capacity and absorbed sulfate, cation exchange capacity, base saturation, and nitrogen content should be determined.

In conjunction with the lake chemistry data collected at these sites, the soil data can be used in watershed models to predict impacts of increased source emissions on lake chemistry (Cosby 1986; Fernandez 1985). It will also aid the interpretation of the lake and snow chemistry data. Protocols for collection of soils information are found in Fox (1987).

Potential Uses of Data/Information

Soils buffer acidic inputs to surface waters, so general soils information is needed for each watershed where sensitive lakes are monitored. Assessments of the condition of soils can be collected as part of soils mapping activity on the White River National Forest.

This information will be used to address the following regulatory questions:

1) What is the current chemical and structural condition of soils in the Forest?

2) Will increases in deposition affect the ability of the soils to buffer lakes from acidic inputs?

II-39 MAGIC is the only model currently available that incorporates soil information.

Model Name Where Available Model Function/Output MAGIC Univ. of Virginia Provides estimate of effect of NPS, NAPAP, CO State soils component on lake chemistry. Potential application for direct changes to soil chemistry.

The utility of soils information in predictive models is currently limited, but models such as MAGIC are in the development phase.

6. Atmospheric Deposition and Ambient Air Chemistry

Description

The National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN) provides data for use by researchers, land managers, policy makers, and others concerned with atmospheric deposition. Precipitation chemistry data are available for all 200 sites in the national network. The data can be used for seasonal and annual summaries, assessment of temporal and spatial trends, the evaluation of geographic distribution of precipitation chemistry, and the display of geographical patterns of chemical deposition.

The WRNF has been monitoring wet deposition as part of the NADP/NTN since February 1988. There are two NADP sites on the WRNF Forest: The Sunlight Peak station (CO92) at 3206 m elevation and at Four Mile Park (CO08) near Ski Sunlight at 2502 m. These two stations are currently being used to monitor changes in concentration and atmospheric deposition with elevation, and changes in regional deposition.

Appendix F provides a listing of active sites in the NADP network as well as data collected to date from the Sunlight Peak and Four Mile Park monitoring stations.

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

At the NADP sites, weekly precipitation is measured in Belfort Universal rain gages, while samples for chemical analysis are collected using Aerochem Metrics Wet/Dry precipitation samplers. Each Tuesday, the rain gage catch and sample volumes are recorded nationwide; the precipitation samples are sent to the NADP central laboratory at the Illinois State Water Survey for analysis. Parameters measured are field pH and specific conductance, lab pH and specific conductance, NH4, Ca, Mg, Na, K, SO4, NO3, CL, and PO4 concentrations.

Specific protocols are followed in site location, operation, and sample collection. A copy of these protocols can be found on the Sopris Ranger District office. Quality assurance and control techniques are employed in the analytical procedures and in the overall site operation, and assure that the data is of sufficient quality to be used in the regulatory process. Data are available

II-40 on request from the NADP/NTN coordination office at Colorado State University (National Atmo- spheric Deposition Program 1987).

Quarterly sulfate and nitrate concentration and pH in wetfall for the two NADP sites on the WRNF (Four Mile Park and Sunlight Peak) are illustrated in Appendix F. Seasonal changes in SO4 and NO3 concentration are apparent, providing different degrees of potential stress to sensitive receptors at different times of the year. Both Four Mile Park and Sunlight Peak sites have moderate SO4 and NO3 concentration compared to sites within Colorado. Concentrations of chemical constituents do not reflect the total amount of deposition of these materials received at a site. The greater the amount of precipitation (both rain and snow) received, the greater the total sulfate and nitrate deposition.

An unofficial NADP site located at Blair Mountain was operated by the USGS from 1983 to 1987. It is "unofficial" because it was never maintained on a weekly basis during the winter months as required by NADP protocol. However, the chemical parameters and methods of analysis were similar to those required at the regular NADP collectors. The site is at a similar elevation as the sample lakes in the Flat Tops Wilderness and is accessible by snowmobile in winter. However, access is still difficult and the information collected duplicates data being collected at Ned Wilson Lake.

Chemical deposition at the high elevation areas of the Flat Tops, Eagles Nest, and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wildernesses has not been measured. However, annual wet deposition of sulfates is estimated to range from 1.08 to 3.25 Kg/Ha depending upon the amount of annual precipitation (Gibson 1990). Annual deposition of nitrates and ammonium is estimated to be 1.17 to 3.52 Kg/Ha (total nitrogen). These estimates are based on chemical concentrations measured at high elevation NADP/NTN sites multiplied by precipitation measurements recorded by the National Resource Conservation Service for the wilderness areas.

Monitoring Strategy

Continue to monitor the existing NADP site at Four Mile Park as a first priority. The Sunlight Peak site is a second priority because of the difficult winter access. Also, measurements of precipitation chemistry over the past five years indicate relatively small differences between the two sites.

The Blair Mountain site is a lower priority. As long as the USGS continues to monitor deposition at Ned Wilson Lake, this site will not be needed.

Precipitation measurements at National Resource Conservation Service Snotel sites can also be used for further estimation of wet chemical deposition.

Potential Uses of Data/Information

The data and information from the atmospheric deposition monitoring program would be used to address the following regulatory questions:

1) What are the trends in deposition concentration for sulfate and nitrate?

II-41 2) What are the trends in precipitation chemistry?

3) What are the relationships between existing and proposed air pollution emissions, atmospheric deposition, and ambient air chemistry?

Models and analysis techniques proposed to address these questions are:

Model Name Where Available Model Function/Output CALNET/CALPUFF EPA For refined analyses of long range dispersion. Output: long and short term concentrations. REGRESSION Statistical analysis - generally Trend analysis available VALLEY EPA Dispersion model used for short distances between source and receptor. A "worst case" concentration estimate for SO2.

7. Snowpack Chemistry and Snowmelt

Description

Snowpack chemistry reflects the winter accumulation of atmospheric deposition in the snowpack. The ion content of a snowpack remains relatively stable prior to initial snowmelt (Cadle 1984; Stottlemyer 1987).

Research suggests the first 10-20% of spring snowmelt water may contain 50-70% of the acid rain material in the snowpack, resulting in an "acid pulse" being released into the watershed (Baird 1987; Cadle 1984; Galloway 1987; Phillip 1986; and Stottlemyer 1987).

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

The USGS has maintained a bulk snow collector near Ned Wilson Lake since 1981. Snow is collected and sent to USGS labs for analysis. Blair Mountain also had a bulk snow collector that was maintained from 1983 to 1987.

Monitoring Strategy

Continue bulk snow collections near Ned Wilson Lake. If this snow collection on Blair Mountain.

Potential Uses of Data/Information

The data and information from the lake and snow chemistry monitoring program would be used to address the following regulatory questions:

II-42 1) What is the effect of present and projected sulfate deposition and sulfur on lake chemistry?

2) What is the effect of present and projected nitrogen deposition and nitrogen on lake chemistry and biomass production?

3) What are the natural variations and current conditions in lake and snowmelt chemistry?

Models and analysis techniques proposed to address these questions are:

Model Name Where Available Model Function/Output

Large Scale Lake Titration USGS Maximizes the potentialchange Model in alkalinity from additional deposition. Will produce a lin- ear response in alkalinity.

MAGICWAND R2 A surface water acidification model. Model inputs deposition values. Outputs include effects to lake and stream chemistry. Regression statistical analysis Trends analysis.

Lake and snowmelt chemistry data give an indication of condition and change (e.g.: acid stress) that may impact aquatic biota in lakes and watersheds.

Snowmelt chemistry has been monitored at some high elevation lakes in Colorado and Wyoming (Glacier Lakes, Loch Vale, Ned Wilson) but requires intensive sampling efforts during the snowmelt season in order to catch the "pulse" while it occurs.

This level of effort usually requires helicopter support (for automatic sampling equipment) or intensive personnel requirements (daily sampling for up to a month). Due to the logistics of this type of sampling, Ned Wilson Lake (as sampled by the USGS) is the only lake in the WRNF recommended for snowmelt sampling at this time.

8. Meteorology

Description

Long term uses of meteorological data are variable, and meteorological stations often monitor only local conditions that are difficult to extrapolate to other areas.

II-43 In complex terrain, diurnal up and down valley flows may be monitored by meteorological stations such as RAWS, but not reflect pollutant flows carried from major point or area sources. However, these data are generally better than no data at all. Information about upper air flow patterns (winds aloft) are the most useful for determining pollution transport into the White River NF but must be extrapolated from the winds aloft measuring sites at Denver and Grand Junction (Figures 1A thru 1D).

Review and Adequacy of Existing Information

TheWRNF has four RAWS (Remote Automated Weather Station) sites. They are located at: Dead- horse in Rio Blanco County, Dowd Junction in Eagle County, McClure Pass in Gunnison County, and Soda Creek in Summit County. In addition, there are 12 other RAWS sites adjacent to the WRNF that are operated by other federal agencies. Table 7, page II-45, provides the names and locations of these 16 stations. The RAWS stations daily monitor temperature, relative humidity, wind speed, and wind direction during the Fire Season (June 1- September 30). RAWS data is available through AFFIRMS/WIMS, a national weather database.

The National Resource Conservation Service has conducted a long term snow survey program within and adjacent to theWRNF. Measurements on some of the snow courses date back to the 1930’s. There are twenty-five SCS snow courses within theWRNF boundaries, seventeen of these sites are equipped with the SNOTEL monitoring system, which permits daily monitoring from a remote site. The SNOTEL system usually measures snow moisture and temperature but has the potential to monitor other weather parameters. Locations of SNOTEL sites and snow courses are provided in Tables 8 and 9, page II-46.

Monitoring Strategy

Flat Tops, Maroon Bells/Snowmass,and Eagles Nest Wildernesses

A need for additional meteorological stations on theWRNF is not anticipated. If a need does develop for additional meteorological data, it would be advisable to explore the installation of sensors at existing SNOTEL sites in cooperation with the SCS. It may also be possible to extrapolate from data currently available through sources such as RAWS, WIMS, and upper level air flow information available through the State Climatological Center.

Potential Uses of Data/Information

Potential uses of meteorological data can include: Using temperature, relative humidity, and solar radiation data in lake evaporative models; using relative humidity data for interpretation of visibility data (if a meteorological station is near the camera site); and using wind speed and direction for pollutant transport models. Most current pollutant transport models use data from the source not the receptor site.

II-44 Table 7 BLM-GRAND JUNCTION DISTRICT USFS-WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST FIRE WEATHER STATIONS

STATION NAME OWNER NESS ID # NWS ID # TYPE LATITUDE LONGITUDE Rifle1 BLM 324A7104 051504 RAWS 390 30.726 1070 44.944 Horse Mountain1 BLM 3259E4F6 051505 RAWS 390 40.415 1070 49.692 Crown1 BLM 325A9568 051506 RAWS 390 21.165 1070 05.732 Demaree1 BLM 3265F06C 051507 RAWS 390 27.621 1070 52.816 Gypsum1 BLM 3259D16C 051607 RAWS 390 41.665 1070 58.365 CNM NPS N/A 052401 Manual 390 06.950 1080 44.083 Pine Ridge BLM 32778496 052407 RAWS 390 14.116 1080 23.066 Walker Field NWS N/A 052408 Manual 390 07.483 1080 31.000 Jacks Canyon BLM 325A137C 052409 RAWS 380 45.183 1080 34.200 Little Delores1 BLM 326607E6 052410 RAWS 380 58.148 1080 56.670 Upr. Storm King BLM 324E2442 051509 RAWS 390 35.167 1070 24.000 Lwr. Storm King BLM 324E11D8 051508 RAWS 390 34.383 1070 25.133 Deadhorse USFS 213603A4 051404 RAWS 400 05.000 1070 22.000 Dowd Junction USFS 3241B960 051606 RAWS 390 38.000 1060 27.000 Soda Creek USFS 323591C8 051703 RAWS 390 34.000 1050 59.000 McClure Pass USFS 3235B724 052810 RAWS 390 45.000 1070 17.000

1 Location verified with Global Position System Table 8 - SNOTEL Sites on WRNF

SNOTEL Site Elevation Latitude Longitude Bison Lake 10,880 39o 46' 107o 21' Burro Mountain 9,400 39o 53' 107o 36' Copper Mountain 10,500 39o 29' 106o 10' Fremont Pass 11,400 39o 23' 106o 12' Grizzly Peak 11,100 39o 39' 105o 52' Hoosier Pass 11,400 39o 22' 106o 04' Independence Pass 10,600 39o 04' 106o 37' Ivanhoe 10,400 39o 17' 106o 33' Kiln 9,600 39o 19' 106o 37' McClure Pass 9,500 39o 08' 107o 17' Nast Lake 8,700 39o 18' 106o 36' North Lost Trail 9,200 39o 05' 107o 09' Ripple Creek Pass 10,340 40o 07' 107o 18' Schofield Pass 10,700 39o 01' 107o 03' Summit Ranch 9,400 39o 43' 106o 10' Trapper Lake 9,700 40o 00' 107o 14' Vail Mountain 10,300 39o 37' 106o 23'

Table 9 - NRCS Snow Course Sites on WRNF

Snow Course Elevation Latitude Longitude Blue River 10,500 39o 23' 106o 03' Burro Mountain 9,400 39o 53' 107o 36' Four Mile Park 9,700 39o 04' 106o 26' Fremont Pass 11,400 39o 23' 106o 12' Hagermann Tunnel 11,150 39o 15' 106o 30' Independence Pass 10,600 39o 04' 106o 37' Ivanhoe 10,400 39o 17' 106o 33' Keystone 9,960 38o 52' 107o 02' Loveland Basin 10,800 39o 41' 105o 54' McKenzie Gulch 8,500 39o 30' 106o 45' Nast 8,700 39o 18 106o 36' Rio Blanco 8,500 40o 02' 107o 17' Shrine Pass 10,700 39o 32' 106o 13' Snake River 10,000 39o 38' 105o 54' Tennessee Pass 10,280 39o 21' 106o 21'

II-46 E. Limits of Acceptable Change

In order to meet its wilderness management responsibilities related to air pollution impacts, it is necessary for the Forest Service to determine (1) sensitive resources in the wilderness to air pollution impacts and (2) how much air pollution impact is acceptable. The "how much air pollution impact is acceptable" is referred to as a "Limit of Acceptable Change" (LAC). In the context of air resource management in the wilderness, LAC’s are those human-caused changes in the physical, chemical, biological, and/or social condition of a wilderness component that can occur without a loss of wilderness character. Basically, LAC’s are the numerical guidelines that the Forest Service uses in the Pre- vention of Significant Deterioration permitting process to determine if monitored or predicted air pollution caused changes are acceptable. LACs will also be used to evaluate wilderness health or naturalness.

The LAC are not air pollution standards. Only States and EPA have the responsibility and authority to develop standards related to air pollutant emissions, ambient air pollutant concentrations, or Class I increments. Also, standards are usually numbers that are "set in concrete" and can only be changed through a formal public notification and hearing process. The LAC’s that the Forest Service uses in its permitting process are only guidelines. That is, they can be modified on a case-by-case basis where information exists to identify a more appropriate limit of acceptable change.

The identification of an LAC is not strictly a scientific, legal, policy or public decision. Instead, the identification of a limits of acceptable change is a management decision based on all of the following:

1) Management goals and objectives identified in the 1964 Wilderness Act and subsequent regulations (36 CFR 293). 2) Agency, Regional, and Forest management goals and objectives identified in the Forest Ser- vice Manual, Regional Guides, and Forest Plans. 3) The regulatory processes identified in Federal and State Prevention of Significant Deteriora- tion (PSD) regulations. 4) The existing condition and sensitivity of specific wilderness components. 5) The existing or "potential" state of science related to understanding, monitoring, and predicting air pollution caused changes on wilderness. 6) Public input.

Items 1-3 are described in more detail in Chapter 2 of Region 2’s "Managing Air Resources in the Rocky Mountain Region" (USDA 1993).

In December 1990, the Region conducted a Workshop to Develop Guidelines to Evaluate Air Pollu- tion Impacts on Wilderness. The Workshop was attended by approximately 90 persons including representatives of the National Forests in Colorado and Wyoming, the States of Colorado and Wyo- ming, the Environmental Protection Agency, Forest Service Research, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Land Management, Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, local universities, private industry, and public interest groups. One purpose of the workshop was to develop a document that represents a survey of facts and information which the Forest Service can employ to identify evaluation procedures and modeling techniques appropriate to predict if existing or proposed air pollution sources will result in adverse impacts to

II-47 wilderness. In short, the Region conducted the workshop to develop recommended guidelines (limits of acceptable change) for evaluating the acceptability of air pollution impacts to wilderness.

Draft recommendations from this group are presented in the following tables to provide an idea of the concerns and values Region 2 considers important in terms of LAC. Unless specific information arises for a wilderness on the WRNF relative to specificLAC, the limits identified below will be used to judge the acceptability of air pollution impacts on the Forest.

As was noted in the beginning of this plan, collecting data to support development of more wilderness specific LACs is one of the objectives of the monitoring efforts on the Forest. However, developing wilderness specific cause-effect relationships will require a close working relationship with the research community.

Cause-effects relationships between air pollutants and individual components of the wilderness resource are influenced by the component’s sensitivity. The sensitivity of a wilderness component depends on its vulnerability to human-caused change, inertia (ability to resist displacement from its natural condition), elasticity (ability to recover from an individual human-caused event), and resil- ience (the number of times the wilderness component can return back to the natural condition after repeated human-caused change incidents).

The determination of the inertia, elasticity, and resiliency of individual wilderness components should, appropriately, be left to the research community to decide. The LAC’s are set conservatively and can be changed as more information is available. The monitoring effort in this plan should help provide that data, and thereby increase our ability to manage and protect wilderness ecosystems. The following LAC’s represent a cumulative effect of all sources, not the effect of one PSD application under consideration.

Visibility

Haze: <0.5 Deciview for haze

Contrast: 0.05% change (from the 90% SVR baseline) for plumes

II-48 TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS

INTERIM LIMITS OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE FOR TERRESTRIAL ECOSYSTEMS Recommended by the Estes Park Work Group (1990)

POLLUTANT RECEPTOR INDICATOR LAC (%CHANGE FROM BASE- LINE) SO2 Lichens: esp. foliose & fruticose Loss of species: 0% forms and epiphytes. Species composition change: 0% SO2 Mosses Loss of species 0%

SO2 Vascular plants: (fast-growing Species change: 0% & riparian species <10% de- Photosynthesis: <10% decrease crease will be the most sensitivedue to high stomatal conductance SO2 Conifers Foliar lesions: <5% Leaf tissue S: <30% increase SO2 Deciduous Foliar injury: <5% Leaf tissue S: <30% increase SO2 Insects: esp. pollinators Species composition 0% Fecundity 0% Tissue content 0% Ozone Vascular plants: (fast growing Species composition: 0% & riparian species will be the Phenology: 0% most sensitivedue to high sto- Tissue content : <10% increase mata conductance) Photosynthesis: <10% increase Ozone Conifers Foliar lesions: <5% Seedling mortality: 0% Leaf retention: <10% decrease Foliated shoot length: <10% decrease Ozone Deciduous Foliar injury: <5% SO4, NOx Vascular Plants: Increased growth (radial or shoot): ±5% Conifer and Deciduous Species cover: ±5% Species composition: ±5% Tissue nutrient (trees on poor soils [eg, Dystric Cryochrepts]are most sensitive): N/P (low N/P will be most sensitive): LIT* C/N (high C/N will be most sensitive): LIT* Bud break or set: ±0 days Seedling mortality: 0% Leaf tissue S: <10% increase SO4, NOx Soils Base saturation (should be about 20 meq/l) low elevation: <15% decrease high elevation: 0% pH : ±0.5 unit Deposition (NOx) : <5kg/ha/yr SO4 in soils solution: <50% increase Extractable Al: LIT* Decomposition rate: LIT* Earthworm abundance 0% SO4, NOx Cultural Resources Weathering of petroglyphs (especially on 0% basic rock)

II-49 POLLUTANT RECEPTOR INDICATOR LAC (%CHANGE FROM BASE- LINE) SO4, NOx Lichens Loss of species: 0% Species composition change: 0% Metals & Lichens (lichens may contain Tissue concentration: VOCs high levels of metals without Pb 200 ppm: <10% increase injury; values represent pristine Zn 400 ppm: <10% increase conditions - consult lit- Hg 2 ppm: <10% increase erature for details) As 1 ppm: <10% increase Cd 1 ppm: <10% increase Se 1 ppm: <10% increase Cu 100 ppm: <10% increase Metals & Mosses Species composition: 0% VOCs Tissue composition : LIT* Metals & Soils: Sensitive soils are those Concentration in inorganic soils: 0% VOCs with low base saturation (Dystric Concentration in organic soils (peat): Cryochrepts, pergelic sub-groups Cu 100 ppm: <10% increase and many Histosols) Zn 400 ppm: <10% increase Pb 200 ppm: <10% increase Cd 1 ppm: <10% increase Hg 2 ppm: <10% increase Se 1 ppm : <10% increase As 1 ppm: <10% increase Fl 3 ppm <10% increase Metals & Soil Fungi: same as for SO4 & VOCs VOCs and NOx

Metals & Vascular plants: Cushion plants Tissue concentration (same metals and <10% increase VOCs in exposed areas of the alpine values as given for lichens, above) may be most likely to accumulate, due to year-round exposure Metals & Bees (domestic bees may be sur- Brood size <10% VOCs rogate) Tissue concentration 0-10% Loss of queen 0% Metals & Bats Guano concentration LIT* VOCs Tissue concentration LIT* Metals & Birds Tissue concentration LIT* VOCs Nesting success LIT* Metals & Mammals Tissue concentration LIT* VOCs Reproductive success LIT* Fluoride All components Tissue or water concentration 0% CO2 Vascular plants: Plants that are not nutrient-limited will most likely be affected; plants with C3 metabolism will be more sensitive than those with C4 or CAM.

*LIT = The Terrestrial Ecosystems Work Group recommended a thorough review of the literature for these LAC values.

II-50 AQUATIC ECOSYSTEMS

Acid-Neutralizing Capacity (ANC): The recommended LAC for lake and stream chemistry is a function of the ANC of the water.

ANC < 25 ueq/l: no greater than 1 ueq/l change ANC = 25-100 ueq/l: 10% change; episodic acidification of concern ANC > 100 ueq/l: 10% change

Air Toxic Compounds: LACs for air toxic compounds should be based on EPA standard values.

Aluminum: The LAC is 50 ppb total dissolved Al in the snowpack, lakes, streams and vernal ponds. This LAC should also protect groundwater and wet caves.

Ammonia: Concern about the ammonium ion is due to emissions from feed lots, agricultural fertili- zation, or oil-shale retorting that could be transported in the atmosphere and deposited in high- elevation watersheds as NH4+ in pristine water may indicate anthropogenic input. The recommended LAC for NH4+ is 2ueq/l.

Aquatic Biota: There is no LAC recommended for impacts to aquatic organisms. Current information suggests that by the time a species response is observed, ecological damage will have already occurred. Monitoring of biological populations is recommended so that information will be available to support chemical evidence of acidification.

Chemical Composition of Wet Deposition (Rain and Snow): A pH of 5.6 is the LC50 (lethal concentration for 50 percent of the individuals) for salamanders. The LC50 is not the LAC, but data for consideration.

Dissolved-Oxygen: Nutrient enrichment can cause algal growth which consumes available oxygen. If oxygen depletion occurs under ice cover it can result in fish kills from anoxia. The LAC is that the limiting nutrient shall not cause DO < 5.0 ppm under ice cover for two thirds of the lake. Where DO is already < 5.0 in 1/3 or more of the lake (thereby leaving inadequate refugia for fish) the LAC = 10 percent ppm change.

Mercury: Mercury is a toxic metal that can bioaccumulate in fish tissue. It was noted by the Work Group that 0.5 mg Hg/kg in fish tissue would be adverse; however, because ambient concentrations of mercury are unknown, an LAC specific to mercury was not recommended by the Group.

Nitrate: Among the consequences of increased industrial activity are increased NOx emissions. These can be transported and converted to NO3, then deposited as either HNO3 or nitrogen salts. Because the source for NO3 concentrations is unknown and may not necessarily be related to air pollution, no LAC is recommended.

II-51 III. CLASS II AIR QUALITY AREAS - WILDERNESS AND NONWILDERNESS

A. Wilderness - Class II Air Quality Areas

There are five other wilderness areas, which are located in whole or in part on the WRNF:

Wilderness National Forest Acreage

Collegiate Peaks Gunnison 149,094 San Isabel 183,231 White River 135,671

Holy Cross San Isabel 29,568 White River 113,842

Hunter/Fryingpan White River 182,929

Raggeds Gunnison 148,598 White River 116,832

Ptarmigan Peak Arapaho (White River) 113,175

White River NF Total - 262,449

1. Forest Service Policy

Since these wilderness areas were established subsequent to the 1977 Amendments to the Federal Clean Air Act, they are Class II Air Quality Areas under the definitions in the Act. Therefore, they are not subject to the same level of protection under the PSD permitting provisions of the Federal Clean Air Act. However, they are given protection under both the Colorado Clean Air Act and the Wilderness Act.

The Wilderness Act gives the Forest Service the responsibility to manage designated wildernesses to preserve and protect their wilderness character. The Wilderness Act defines wilderness as "...an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man..." and "...is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions...". The regulations for managing wilderness (36 CFR 293.2) state "...National Forest Wilderness resources shall be managed to promote, perpetuate, and where necessary, restore the wilderness character of the land...".

The Wilderness Act and regulations developed to implement it do not directly address air quality or air pollution impacts on Wilderness. However, they do provide direction in determining what should be protected in wilderness (the earth and its community of life) and to what degree (preserve its natural conditions). As a result, Rocky Mountain Regional policy is that air quality related values are to be protected in all designated wildernesses.

III-1 The Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, has agreed to work closely with the Forest Service on all PSD permit applications, which may affect wilderness areas. Therefore, it is anticipated that the Forest Service will be given an opportunity to review and comment on PSD permit applications with potential for impacts on both Class I and Class II wilderness areas.

2. Descriptions and Air Quality Related Values

Hunter/Fryingpan Wilderness - This wilderness was established in 1978 and includes more than 74,000 acres entirely within the WRNF. The area includes the headwaters of the Fryingpan River, and the Hunter Creek and Woody Creek tributaries of the Roaring Fork River. The continental divide forms its eastern boundary. Elevations range from 8,500 to more than 13,000 feet. The climate is typical of high elevations in the Rocky Mountains with short summers and long, cold winters. Av- erage annual precipitation ranges by elevation from 30 to 40 inches with more than half of this fall- ing as snow between November and April. The area is an important source of water, some of which is diverted through trans-mountain diversion tunnels (e.g. Hunter, Chapman, South Fork, and Charles H. Boustead Tunnels) to the Arkansas River drainage on the east side of the continental divide. Although much of the area is above timberline, there are several extensive stands of coniferous forest. The vast majority of the exposed rocks are precambrian granites and metamorphic rocks.

Holy Cross Wilderness - This wilderness area was established in 1980 and includes more than 124,000 acres in the WRNF and San Isabel National Forest. The area is located in the northern part of the Sawatch Mountain Range and is primarily drained by the Eagle River and its tributaries. The southern part of the wilderness drains into the Fryingpan River. That portion of the wilderness located in the San Isabel NF is on the east side of the continental divide and is drained by the Arkan- sas River. Elevations range from 8,000 to over 14,000 feet, and much of the area is above timberline. The climate is typical of high elevations in the Rocky Mountains with average annual precipitation ranging from 30 to 50 inches with elevation. There are a number of small lakes located within the wilderness boundaries. Some of the water produced by this area is diverted through the Missouri and Homestake tunnels for use by the Colorado front range communities.

The central feature of the Holy Cross Wilderness is the Mount of the Holy Cross (Elevation - 14,005 feet). A white, "Latin" cross can be seen on the northeast face of the peak. A deep crevice, 1,150 feet long, forms the upright of the cross. About 500 feet below the top of crevice, a snow-covered bench, 25 to 50 feet wide and approximately 400 feet long, forms the cross arm. The "cross of snow" is usually partially melted by late July.

The first recorded ascent of the peak was in 1873 by members of the F.V. Hayden U.S. Geological Survey expedition. At the same time, the cross was photographed by William H. Jackson. One year later an artist, Thomas Moran, visited the area. Moran’s painting, "The Mount of the Holy Cross, Colorado" became one of his most famous works. In 1929, an area of 1,392 acres surrounding the mountain was established as a national monument. In 1951 the National Monument was returned to National Forest status.

Raggeds Wilderness - This wilderness was established in 1980 and includes more than 65,000 acres on the Gunnison and White River National Forests. The White River NF portion of the wilderness (16,832 acres) comprises the northeast slopes of The Raggeds Mountains. These mountains are well named with extremely steep, rocky, and broken terrain and numerous ledges and cliffs. Elevations within the wilderness range from 7,000 to over 13,000 feet. Average annual precipitation

III-2 ranges between 25 to 50 inches with elevation. The White River portion of the wilderness is drained by tributaries of the Crystal River. Very little of the area on the WRNF is forested, since much of the surface is exposed rocks. The only lakes on the WRNF side are two small ponds in the Milton Creek drainage and Yule Lakes.

Collegiate Peaks Wilderness - Established in 1980, this wilderness includes 167,996 acres in the San Isabel, Gunnison, and White River National Forests. The WRNF portion of the wilderness (37,671 acres) is located on the west side of the continental divide at the headwaters of the Roaring Fork River. Elevations within this part of the wilderness range from 9,000 to almost 14,000 feet. There are extensive areas of exposed rock and alpine tundra; less than 30% of the WRNF portion is forested. Climate and annual precipitation are typical of high elevations in the Rocky Mountains with average annual precipitaton ranging between 25 and 40 inches with elevation. Water from the area is an extremely important resource for downstream communities such as Aspen. Some of this water is diverted to the east side of the continental divide through the Twin Lakes Reservoir and Ca- nal Company Tunnel Number 1.

Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness - This wilderness was established by the Colorado Wilderness Act of 1993. The area is located on the west side of the Williams Fork Mountains and includes a total of 13,175 acres. While small in size, the top of its ridge offers vistas to the west of the Gore Range, Eagle’s Nest Wilderness and the Mount of the Holy Cross. Southern views include the Tenmile Range and Tenmile Canyon. To the south is the Continental Divide. There are no lakes in this Wilderness. Climate is typical of high elevations in the Rocky Mountains with average annual precipitation ranging between 30 and 40 inches with elevation.

Air Quality Related Values - Forest Service policy in the Rocky Mountain Region is that the air quality related values of flora, fauna, soil, water, visibility, odor, and cultural/archeological/paleontological features are of equal importance in the wilderness areas of the Region. In the four Class II air quality wildernesses areas on the WRNF, it is particularly important to monitor any changes in water quality.

3. Potential Impacts And Monitoring Needs

Existing and potential impacts on air quality in the Forest’s Class I Air Quality areas are described in detail in section II., B. of this plan. This same discussion is applicable to the Forest’s Class II Air Quality Areas. One significant difference is that the Hunter/Fryingpan, Collegiate, Ptarmigan Peak, and Holy Cross Wildernesses are all located down wind from the prevailing westerly winds flowing over the Maroon Bells/Snowmass and Flat Tops Wildernesses (See Exhibit 4, page III-5). Gener- ally, monitoring in the Class I wildernesses should detect impacts from regional pollution before the Class II wildernesses are affected. Also, there are no existing or anticipated local point pollutant sources, which would be expected to impact the Class II wildernesses before the Class I areas are affected. In most instances, the Forest’s air monitoring program will focus primarily on Class I air quality areas.

One exception is the wilderness lake monitoring which includes two Class II wilderness areas on the WRNF. They are the Collegiate Peaks and Holy Cross Wilderness areas and display a high sensitivity to acidic deposition. Their data, therefore, support the Class I wilderness lake monitoring program.

III-3 The Pike/San Isabel National Forest has the lead responsibility for management of the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness. In accordance with that responsibility, an Air Resource Management Plan has been prepared for the P/SI Forest, which addresses air quality monitoring in the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness. The Plan provides for the WRNF to monitor lake chemistry through an existing partnership in that portion of the wilderness located on the White River National Forest.

The Gunnison National Forest has the lead responsibility for management of the Raggeds Wilder- ness. In 1994, the Forest completed its "Gunnison Airshed Resource Management Plan" which includes an air quality monitoring plan for the Raggeds.

The following monitoring activities will be conducted in the Class II wildernesses as funding and opportunities permit:

Water - Lake Chemistry

Hunter/Fryingpan Wilderness - Scott and Windsor Lakes. Scott Lake has been sampled synop- tically every three years and was scheduled for sampling in 1997. However, at a 4/5/96 meeting at the RO it was decided that long-term monitoring (i.e. yearly per current protocol) will obtain results much sooner than tri-annual sampling. Because of limited funds, these lakes are not funded by the Forest. If consistent funding becomes available, these lakes should be added to the monitoring program.

Collegiate Peaks Wilderness - Tabor and Brooklyn Lakes are currently sampled yearly as part of the Aspen District’s wilderness lake monitoring effort.

Holy Cross Wilderness - West Tennessee, Blodgett, and Upper Turquoise Lakes are currently monitored as part of the Holy Cross District’s wilderness lake monitoring effort.

Raggeds Wilderness - None

Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness - None.

Visibility

The view of the Mount of the Holy Cross from the observation site near Shrine Pass has cultural and historical significance as well as being a famous scenic attraction. At this time there is no plan to install visibility monitoring equipment for this site. Current visibility monitoring of the Maroon Bells/Snowmass and Eagle’s Nest Wilderness areas provide sufficient information at this time. However, this site is considered a sensitive receptor and mentioned in case circum- stances change that could necessitate visibility monitoring here.

III-4

B. Non- Wilderness Areas

1. Smoke Sensitive and Non-Attainment Areas

The most smoke sensitive areas in the immediate vicinity of the WRNF are the primary river valleys. These include:

∗ The Blue River valley from Breckenridge to Kremmling. ∗ The Vail Valley from East Vail to Dowd Junction. ∗ The Eagle River Valley from Redcliff to Dotsero including the lower portions of Lake Creek, Brush Creek, and Gypsum Creek. ∗ The White River Valley from Lost Creek to Meeker. ∗ The Crystal River Valley from Marble to Carbondale. ∗ The Roaring Fork valley from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. ∗ The Frying Pan River drainage from Ruedi Reservoir to Basalt. ∗ The Colorado River canyons and valleys from State Bridge to Parachute.

The above areas are sensitive because most of the local population is concentrated on the private lands along the valley bottoms. Also, night time inversions and the diurnal wind patterns tend to con- centrate smoke in the valleys and canyons during the night and early morning hours. These areas also include most of the major transportation corridors and all of the local airports.

Three other areas on the WRNF are considered to be smoke sensitive because of their nationally famous scenic values and high recreation use. The three areas are:

∗ The Maroon Creek valley from Maroon Lake to Aspen. ∗ The Mount of the Holy Cross including the viewing area from Shrine Pass. ∗ The Trappers Lake area.

There are also several smoke sensitive areas, which are not located in the immediate vicinity of the WRNF but could be impacted by smoke from wildfires or prescribed fires on the Forest. These areas include:

∗ The Plateau Creek valley including the town of Colbran. ∗ The North Fork of the Gunnison River Valley from Paonia Reservoir to Hotchkiss. ∗ The Slate River Valley in the vicinity of Crested Butte. ∗ The upper Arkansas River Valley from Leadville to Twin Lakes. ∗ The Clear Creek drainage from Loveland Ski Area to Idaho Springs. ∗ The Fraser River Valley from Winter Park to Granby. ∗ The upper Colorado River Valley from Grand Lake to Kremmling. ∗ The Yampa River Valley from Toponas to Craig.

Wildfires and prescribed fires, which produce large quantities of smoke and/or last for several days, could easily impact these "down-wind" areas. Recognition and consideration of potential impacts to

III-6 off-Forest smoke sensitive areas is essential to proper management of both wildfires and prescribed fires on the WRNF.

Exhibit 5, page III-9, shows the general location of the smoke sensitive areas within and around the Forest.

Non-Attainment Areas

Communities in the vicinity of the WRNF are in compliance with all NAAQS standards except for particulates. According to information provided by the Colorado Department of Health, Air Pollution Control Division, two communities in the general vicinity of the Forest have been designated as "non-attainment" areas because of exceedances of Colorado Ambient Air Quality Standards. These are summarized as follows:

TABLE 10 PM10 Exceedances

Site Dates of Exceedance

Aspen 2/22/91 2/25/88 2/24/88

Steamboat Springs 2/09/91 2/27/91 1990 1989

Exceedances of PM10 have also been monitored in Telluride, Cripple Creek (1995) and in Crested Butte (1997). Section 176-C of the Federal Clean Air Act prohibits the Forest Service (or any federal agency) from engaging in, supporting, licensing, or approving any activity adding pollution in a non-attainment area.

Monitoring of PM10 concentrations is conducted in several communities around the Forest including Aspen, Brekenridge, Glenwood Springs, Grand Junction, Leadville, Rifle, Silverthorne and Vail. Historically, violations of the 24-hour standard for PM10 have occurred during the winter and early spring. The primary sources of the pollutants are smoke from wood burning stoves/fireplaces and dust from street sanding.

In the past, carbon monoxide levels in Aspen have occasionally hovered near the federal and state standards. These increased carbon monoxide levels also happened during winter time inversions and are believed to be the result of vehicle emissions.

National Forest management activities, which generate air borne pollutants such as prescribed burning, are conducted during the late spring, summer, and early fall. Therefore, the potential for con- flicts with efforts by the communities to comply with ambient air quality standards is reduced. How- ever, National Forest managers need to be cognizant of potential problems and take action to avoid or minimize impacts on air quality in smoke sensitive areas and especially in Non-Attainment areas.

III-7

The following sections of this plan describe management techniques currently being employed to prevent or minimize the impacts of National Forest management on air quality.

2. Wildfire Management and Prescribed Burning

Wildfire Management

In Wilderness Areas, the smoke from naturally occurring wildfires is considered to be a natural phenomenon. However, this same smoke can also become a nuisance and a problem if it impacts a resi- dential area, high use recreation areas, or other smoke sensitive locations.

Forest Service direction for the management of wildfires (FSM 5130) requires a Fire Situation Analysis (FSA) evaluating initial suppression action on each uncontrolled wildfire following the first burning period. An Escaped Fire Situation Analysis (EFSA) is required for all wildfires, which es- cape initial attack efforts, and containment is not expected prior to the second burning period. Both of these analyses are intended to be decision making processes to determine the most appropriate strategy and tactics for suppressing the fire. Potential impacts on air quality are an increasingly important element in the analysis and decision making.

Analysis of the potential wildfire impacts on air quality must include projections of the areas likely to be affected by smoke and the duration of the impacts. These estimations are based on fuel conditions, forecasted wind directions, forecasted smoke dispersal conditions, and the expected duration of the wildfire. The duration of the fire is dependant upon the suppression strategy employed. The analysis of air quality impacts must also identify any smoke sensitive areas, which are expected to be affected.

An example of how air quality considerations may influence management of a wildfire would be in a situation where a wildfire is confined by natural barriers. However, several days burning will be required for the fire to reach the barriers. In the interim, heavy smoke is expected to drain downslope into a smoke sensitive valley each night until the fire is out. To reduce the duration of this impact, a direct control suppression strategy might be employed or a burn-out operation might be conducted to shorten the time.

On the WRNF there has been an increased awareness by fire managers of the potential impacts of smoke and the methods available to mitigate those impacts. Particular emphasis needs to be given to consideration of potential impacts on "off-Forest" smoke sensitive areas.

Prescribed Burning

Smoke from prescribed burning has more potential to adversely affect air quality than any other Na- tional Forest management activity on the WRNF. Several management requirements have been implemented to reduce and/or mitigate these adverse impacts. These requirements include:

a) Open Burning Permits from the Colorado Department of Health are required for all prescribed burning projects on the WRNF. There are two types of permits; one is for planned ignitions and the other is for naturally ignited prescribed fires. Applications are normally submitted to the State annually during February. After completion of the prescribed burn

III-9 project, an "Actual Fire Activity" report is submitted to the State by March 1 of the following year.

b) Prescribed Burn Plans are required for all prescribed burning projects conducted on Na- tional Forest lands. Smoke management considerations are a required part of every Prescribed Burn Plan (FSM 5142). This section of the plan must address potential impacts on Class I air quality areas, local residents, population centers, transportation corridors, airports, and other smoke sensitive areas. The smoke management section of the plan must also include the procedures to be followed to mitigate both expected and unexpected unfavorable effects.

c) The Forest Service has implemented a certification/qualification program for personnel involved in prescribed burning. Formal training in smoke management techniques is a qualification requirement for Prescribed Fire Planning Specialists, Prescribed Fire Managers, and all three Burning Boss levels. This training provides personnel in these positions with both an awareness of the need for smoke management and technical training in the methods available for mitigating adverse effects.

In a Regional effort to document the impacts to smoke sensitive areas by large prescribed fires, the Forest Service and the Colorado State Air Pollution Control Division have prepared a smoke monitoring plan. The goals are to develop an air quality monitoring protocol that will enable the agencies to adequately determine real-time smoke impacts from large prescribed fires as well as evaluate public exposure to particulate matter from these fires.

Monitoring efforts are expected to include real-time monitoring via an aerosol monitor (DataRAM) along with 24-hour bulk sampling using Mini-VOLS. Currently this effort is just beginning to develop appropriate and feasible monitoring methodology.

The Forest completed a "Prescribed Natural Fire Plan" for the Flat Tops Wilderness in 1996. Col- lection of data and development of similar plans for other wilderness areas on the Forest are scheduled for 1997 thru 1999. Smoke management and analysis of potential impacts on air quality outside of the wilderness areas will need to be an integral part of this planning.

The Forest has an active prescribed burning program for wildlife habitat and range improvement. Depending upon funding and weather conditions, between 2,000 and 4,000 acres are burned annually for these purposes. Most of these burns are in brush and grass fuel types with light to moderate fuel loadings. The burns can usually be conducted during one burning period and during conditions which are conducive to good smoke dispersal. As a result, smoke management measures are usually limited to ensuring that smoke dispersal conditions are favorable during the actual burning period, wind directions carry the smoke away from smoke sensitive areas, and there is a minimal amount of hold-over burning during the night.

The Forest also burns from 100 to 200 acres of logging slash each year. Most of this consists of burning scattered piles of landing slash, which have been machine-piled by timber purchasers. Fuel loadings are typically in excess of 200 tons per acre and include a high percentage of large diameter fuels (3+ inches). To avoid fire control problems, this type of burning is usually conducted during the late fall and early winter after the first snowfall. Although burning under these conditions mini- mizes control problems, it makes management of the smoke much more difficult.

III-10 Hold-over burning of slash piles during the night may result in smoke draining downslope into smoke sensitive valley areas during the night and early morning hours. A number of techniques are available to prevent adverse impacts including:

∗ Reducing the amount of slash through utilization methods such as fuel wood gathering, lop and scatter for wildlife habitat, etc. ∗ Timing of the burning so that heavy fuels are still dry ∗ Machine bunching to achieve more consumption of the heavy fuels during favorable smoke dispersal conditions ∗ Stage burning to reduce the volume of smoke being produced at one time, etc.

Increased emphasis must be placed on proper smoke management of what are generally considered to be "low-profile" burning projects.

In addition to prescribed burning by the Forest Service, there is a significant amount of burning each year by permittees and others. Disposal of slash and debris from clearing operations on ski areas has been the most common type of burning by National Forest Permittees. Recent decisions on ski area expansion projects have specifically limited the ski areas’ ability to burn citing alternate methods of disposal as a priority over burning. There are also a small amount of burning on National Forest lands by timber purchasers, oil and gas leases, and others. Prescribed Burning Plans, approved by the Forest Service, are also required for burning by permittees and others. In the case of ski areas, the prescribed burning plan is usually incorporated into the ski area’s Summer Operating Plan, which is prepared and approved annually.

In most cases, permittees are burning machine-piled slash with a high percentage of large diameter fuels and high moisture content. This presents the same type of smoke management problems as were previously described for slash pile burning by the Forest Service. Forest managers must insist that appropriate smoke management measures are both planned and implemented by permittees.

Burning of conifer fuels types is expected to be included in the WRNF’s prescribed burn program. Single prescribed ignitions are planned on the Flat Tops that could burn up to 1,000 acres at one time. Such programs are expected to increase in the future for purposes of fuels reduction, wildlife habitat improvement, and/or as part of a natural prescribed fire program. These larger burns have the potential to emit much larger concentrations of fine particulate matter, underscoring the need of the Forest to improve smoke management skills and prevent impacting smoke sensitive areas located off-Forest.

3. Gravel Pits and Roads

National Forest management activities occasionally produce other air pollutants in addition to smoke. The most common of these is dust from gravel crushing operations, road construction, and use of unpaved roads. Dust from timber hauling is a particularly common problem.

Dust from these operations is generally a localized nuisance and is easily mitigated. The most important step in mitigation is recognition during the environmental analysis that dust from a proposed project may become an issue. Once this potential is recognized, the adverse effects can usually be mitigated by relocating the project or by requiring dust abatement measures. Dust abatement is often

III-11 required in timber sale contracts where the haul route passes residences or developed recreation areas. The same emphasis on dust control needs to be given to other management activities.

4. Other Permitted National Forest Uses

A number of activities are authorized on National Forest land, which have potential for degradation of air quality within and adjacent to the Forest. These include oil and gas exploration/development authorized by minerals leasing, locatable mineral mining with required surface operating plans, and commercial recreation developments permitted by special use permits. On the WRNF, the most significant of these authorized uses are commercial skiing resorts. Table 11, page III-13, identifies associated sources of air pollution that should be considered for specific Forest activities or projects.

All of these activities are subject to environmental analysis for compliance with the National Envi- ronmental Policy Act (NEPA) prior to authorization or approval. The processes for analysis and mitigation of the potential impacts on air quality are similar despite the differences in permitting/approval authorities. The purpose of the analysis is to determine both the effect the proposed activity will have on air quality and the extent of that impact. The areas of concern are usually nearby communities and air quality related values such as visibility in wilderness areas. Identification of potential mitigations of adverse effects on air quality is an essential part of the analysis. It is usually necessary for proponents of activities with significant potential for air pollution to employ a consultant to conduct the air quality impact analysis.

In making an air quality impact analysis, it is necessary to estimate the ambient air pollutant concentrations that will result from the activity and add these to the baseline air pollutant concentrations, which exist at the site and other areas of concern. The next step is to determine if the sum of these concentrations will exceed ambient air quality standards or have an adverse effect on air quality related values.

Determination of the baseline air pollutant concentrations requires specific information on existing air pollution sources and the topography and meteorology of the area. In determining baseline air pollutant levels, it is best to use actual monitoring data. In the case of activities located in high mountain valleys, the data should be collected during the months when air quality is expected to be most impacted. For instance, in the case of ski area developments, most exceedances of fine particulate matter have occurred during the winter months between mid-November and mid-April. Meteorological information including both surface and upper air data should be collected at the same time. Collection of such baseline data must be accompanied with a monitoring plan that has been reviewed and approved by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Division. This step helps assure that correct methods and locations are used and ensures the data collected is useful and valid. Meteorological information is particularly important in determining an activity’s potential air pollution impact to an area.

In the absence of actual monitoring data, the State may provide estimates of both existing air pollution levels and meteorology. However, the values provided by the State are usually conservative and may over estimate air pollution concentrations.

It is essential that the proponent provide the information necessary to estimate emissions of air pollutants resulting from the proposed activity. For ski area developments, this may include numbers and locations of fireplaces, location of roads and parking lots, predicted traffic volumes, location

III-12 of restaurants, etc. Proponents of mineral development activities need to provide information on the location of roads, road surfacing, traffic volumes, location and emissions from facilities, location and emissions from wells, etc. If the proposed activity is located both on and off National Forest System lands, it is necessary to determine the type and amount of emissions from sources on and off National Forest System land.

The pollutants of particular concern for ski area developments are usually carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSP), and inhalable particulates (PM10). However, all proposed activities must address expected emissions and the projected ambient air concentrations for applicable criteria pollutants listed in the State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards. (See Plan Section I., C.)

Various modeling techniques have been developed to project ambient air concentrations, the potential for transport of pollutants to other locations, and the effect the pollutants may have on visibility. Projections must be made for worst case meteorological and emissions conditions. It is important to consult with and gain concurrence with the State APCD and EPA on the appropriate modeling techniques prior to the actual analysis.

When an air quality impact analysis indicates that a proposed activity on National Forest System land will not be in compliance with the Ambient Air Quality Standards, mitigation measures to assure compliance will be required or approval of the activity will be denied. However, sometimes the proposed use of National Forest System land will be in full compliance with air quality standards, but associated developments located off-Forest are expected to result in non-compliance. In this latter situation, approval may be given for the proposed use of the National Forest System land, but full disclosure of the expected impacts are made in the NEPA documentation. This allows State and local permitting authorities to take appropriate action to prevent violation of the air quality standards.

However, an important exception exists when developments off-Forest may result in a conflict with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for a non-attainment area. Section 176(c) of the Federal Clean Air Act requires that a federal agency must not engage in, support in any way, license, or approve any activity which does not meet all applicable requirements of the SIP. When this situation exists, air pollution caused by the permitted activity from sources either on or off National Forest System land, must be mitigated or the permit cannot be approved. It is also essential to gain concurrence of local agencies, the State, and EPA on both the analysis procedures and any required mitigations.

III-14 IV. AIR RESOURCE DATA MANAGEMENT

Introduction:

Much of the data collected for Region 2’s monitoring programs are designed to produce information for use in the regulatory process. Consequently, data management is extremely important. High-quality data are of little use, however, without analysis to extract meaningful information. The intent of the monitoring program is to establish a characteristic baseline, then use statistical analysis and models to evaluate the current and predicted effects of exposure to air pollution as estimated from the information in a PSD permit application. An electronic database is necessary for the optimum storage, retrieval, analysis, and understanding of much of the information collected through the Forest’s air quality monitoring program.

National Information Management Strategy for Air Quality:

A National Air Program information management planning effort, called ARMISP (Air Re- source Management Information Strategy Project) was completed in March 1993. The project identified what information the national ARM program needs to conduct business, and then evaluated the best way to address those information needs. The project focused on preparing for development and implementation of computer applications in the "corporate" Forest Service shared information environment, determining where specific computer applications will be developed by the air program, and where we can fit into larger applications development projects (such as ecosystem management). Implementation of the recommended strategies, which will provide a blueprint for information management as the Air Program matures, will take place over the next few years.

Existing Information Management Options:

As part of the ARMISP, a national data information center is available via the Internet. Called the Air Quality Related Value Application Project (AQRVAP), it is an information management structure that permits access to AQRV data for each Class I wilderness area in the United States.

Within Region 2 the FS Regional Office in Lakewood, Colorado has an air quality data base management system (DBMS) utilizing PC-based SAS software. This system includes Western Lake Survey data and NADP data for Colorado and Wyoming as well as USGS lake chemistry monitoring data for the Flat Tops, Weminuche, and Mt Zirkel Wildernesses. Its advantages are that it has a flexible format for the input of existing or future data, is available on PC, is menu- driven, and contains a large amount of "meta-data" (information about data such as where, when, how, and by whom it is is collected) with each data set. The disadvantages of this system are its limited graphics capability and the expense of maintenance and licensing so that location of the DBMS will probably be limited to the Regional Office.

Another available database is through AIMS II which was started by the Rocky Mountain Ex- periment Station, using Paradox software on the PC. It is used primarily for research data from the GLEES project. The interactive database is fully operational for water chemistry, meteorological, ozone, wet and dry deposition, vegetation, and plankton data.

IV-1 Information Management Issues:

Data collected in conjunction with the WRNF air quality monitoring plan should be archived and kept up to date with one of the above systems or within a commercially available PC-based data base management software. Also, the quality and general methodology of current or past monitoring projects must be carefully documented within the data base to avoid inappropriate comparisons of data.

The lead agency for a specific monitoring project will be responsible for data entry and analysis. For example, NADP precipitation samples are collected by Forest Service personnel, but information management is handled by the NADP. Any analysis or modeling (in addition to the regular reporting of the lead agency) needed for land management or PSD-permit purposes will be the responsibility of the Forest or the Regional Office. To facilitate the availability of data for use in the regulatory process, all data from contracted monitoring activities must be made available to the Forest Service in an electronic format and be updated as monitoring projects proceed.

Following are the major types of data that are being collected by or for the Forest Service on the WRNF; including cooperating agencies and contractors, the data format, and results/ consequences. Appendix C contains tables and graphs of data collected to date for the wilderness lake studies. Appendix E contains visibility data collected to data. Appendix F contains a summary and graphs of NADP data collected to date for both sites on the White River Na- tional Forest.

ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION

National Atmospheric Deposition Program/National Trends Network (NADP/NTN)

Richard Flagler/Gary Lear NADP/NTN Coordination Office Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 303-491-5580 or 491-1989

Data Format: Data is sent quarterly on diskettes from the contractor to the Sopris District. A semi-annual data report and annual data summary are sent to the Region 2 Office and to the Forest. Copies of the diskettes, data reports, and annual data summaries are also be kept at the Supervisor’s Office.

Scope of the Data: Although the annual report graphically portrays the deposition chemistry data for each station, it does not address the data’s long-term trend analysis. The maps in the annual summary are for the entire continental United States, whereas a Regional map of the data would be most useful locally. The responsibility for determining trends at each site and between sites is left to the Forest.

IV-2 VISIBILITY and AEROSOL MONITORING

Rich Fisher, Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) Scott Copeland, Data Analyst Rocky Mountain Experiment Station Fort Collins, Colorado 80525 DG address: S28A (970)498-1232

Data Format: Visibility monitoring is primarily conducted via photography. Particulate monitoring via the IMPROVE network sometimes accompanies camera data and provides a break- down of constituents that can affect visibility.

Until 1994, representative photographs of the best, worst, and average visibility were sent quarterly from the contractor to the Regional Office and to Forests with camera sites. Copies of those quarterly reports and the representative photos for each camera site are available at the Supervisor’s Office. Between 1994 and 1997, photograph visibility data summaries were sent quarterly to the Regional Office and each District camera site. Scanning of slides for quantitative values was discontinued in the summer of 1997 because it became cost prohibi- tive. The two camera sites on the Forest are still in operation and the resulting slides archived. However, only qualitative information is available with the photographs taken after May, 1977. Visibility raw data or slide copies are available through Air Resources Specialists (970)484-7941.

Quarterly IMPROVE data is provided by the Crocker Nuclear Laboratory, University of California, Davis (Thomas Cahill as principal investigator) to the Regional Office, Supervisor’s Office and the site operator (in our case, this is the Aspen Ranger District). Site summary data including both IMPROVE and camera data is available by request through Scott Copeland.

Scope of the Data: For camera data, the frequency that the visibility was better than or worse than average is listed for each site. A terrain/sky contrast number is also given, which relates to the Standard Visual Range (SRV). Prior to the Fall of 1995, median and 90th percentile SVR’s were calculated in relation to the target distance in the photos. Current reporting is in visibility metric format (deciviews) which yields similar results. However, it is recommended that direct comparisons between the two types of data summaries not be made. The SVR frequency and related statistics are reported to the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) program, which develops a baseline in selected Class I areas.

IV-3 SURFACE WATERS - LAKE CHEMISTRIES

Louise O’Deen Lab Manager Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station 240 W. Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 DG Address S28A 303-498-1293

Data Format: Data is sent at the end of every field season from the RMS lab to Regional Office and to the Forest and district doing data collection. Data is in a PC based format available either in ASCII files or Quatro-Pro software files. Copies of this data should also be maintained in a PC based format at the Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Scope of the Data: The focus is on defining the chemistry of selected high-elevation sensitive lakes in Class I wilderness areas on the Forest.

TERRESTRIAL BIOTA: LICHENS

Contract or University study (contact person will vary)

Data Format: The lichen studies in the Flat Tops Wilderness have been conducted as an initial inventory followed by monitoring at 10 year intervals after the initial study. Because of this intermittent monitoring; the contractor for each study may vary, and the reporting style may also vary. Reports of the studies conducted to date have consisted of written reports and photographs. Copies of the reports and photographs are maintained at Forest Supervisor’s Office and at the Regional Office. It would be desirable to convert the data to an electronic format to the extent possible.

Scope of the Data: Lichens are sensitive to air pollution and can be identified as a sensitive receptor to atmospheric deposition. Many physiological and structural factors contribute to this susceptibility: They have a high retention capacity and therefore accumulate elements; they have no protective cuticle to serve as a barrier to material from the atmosphere; they absorb most of their nutrients and water directly from the atmosphere; and they are long-lived. Where lichen tissue analysis is conducted, the tissue samples should be archived in case further analysis is required at a later date.

IV-4 V. COORDINATION

The WRNF air program involves close coordination between the Forest Service and many other agencies and organizations. The following gives an overview of the roles of these other agencies and groups to explain how they may interact with or help implement the Forest's air resource management objectives.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA has the responsibility of carrying out many of the provisions in the Clean Air Act. Some of this responsibility (i.e.: PSD permits) the EPA has delegated to the State of Colorado. The EPA also assists with partial funding of the WRNF air quality monitoring projects such as the NADP sites and the USGS lake monitoring work.

Colorado State Department of Health: Issues (PSD) permits for new sources projected to emit greater than 100 tons-per-year or 250 tons-per-year (amount allowed depends on the type of pollution source) of certain criteria pollutants. Reviews recommendations of Federal Land Managers to determine impacts of these potential sources on FS Wilderness. Writes implementation plans specifying how non-attainment areas will reduce pollution. Reviews and permits prescribed burn plans.

U.S. Geological Survey: Conducts monitoring of many of Colorado's high elevation lakes and streams. This includes the long-term (since 1982) monitoring of Ned Wilson Lake in the Flat Tops Wilderness area. Receives funding to conduct this monitoring from many sources including the FS, the EPA, and the State of Colorado.

PSD Permit Applicants: Works with the State of Colorado to obtain a permit for a new pollution source. Must provide the State with any information that the FS requests relevant to projected pollution effects on any air quality related values on FS lands. May help provide monitoring of air quality related values if the State requests that as part of a permit condition.

Private Consultants: Consultants are usually hired by the Permit Applicant to write the PSD permit application. They are also often used by the FS to conduct monitoring of air quality related values particularly that monitoring for which a certain expertise is required such as a lichenolo- gist to do lichen surveys. Consultants are sometimes used to provide modeling expertise on the projected impacts of air pollutants on air quality related values as well as to conduct air resource analyses for NEPA documents when the issues are complex and/or contentious. Many NEPA documents dealing with ski area expansions require input from consultants chosen by the Forest.

Volunteers and Cooperators: Volunteers and Cooperating Groups are very valuable in working with the FS to accomplish air resource management objectives. Monitoring projects such as the Maroon Bells Lake sampling program and the Maroon Bells visibility camera are jointly funded by the FS and the Aspen Wilderness Workshop. Groups or individuals using the wilderness for purposes such as research projects can also help in collecting data or samples. In the Eagles Nest Wilderness, a University of Colorado botanist collecting plant data was enlisted to collect lake samples for initial inventory while he was in the area.

The Air Resource Management Plan for the WRNF can be used as a tool to facilitate coordination and cooperation between the Forest and the above groups in accomplishing the air resource management objectives identified in the plan.

V-1 Coordination Needs

Continued and increased coordination will be necessary with the USGS, EPA, NADP, and Colorado Air Quality Division. Increased interaction will be necessary with the Soil Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Rocky Mountain Forest & Range Experiment Station, National Park Service - Air Quality & Water Resource Divisions, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Aca- demic institutions should be involved as sources of information on plankton, macroinvertebrates, vascular plants and lichens, and as a source of personnel to conduct surveys. The USFS Region 2 Office is a source of information on monitoring plans in other Forests and may assist in interagency coordination efforts.

There is also potential for cooperation and interaction with public interest groups. The Audubon So- ciety, Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, Colorado Mountain Club, Colorado Environmental Coalition, The Nature Conservancy, and the Aspen Wilderness Workshop are some potential sources of volunteer, financial, or political assistance or support. The Aspen Wilderness Workshop has been particularly cooperative and supportive of the Forest's air quality monitoring program in the Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness.

Contact with the air quality agencies in neighboring states is also necessary to obtain information about potential emissions as well as for comparison of data from other monitoring programs.

V-2 VI. WORKLOAD ANALYSIS, BUDGETING, TRAINING & QUALITY CONTROL

A. Budgeting

Effective participation in the PSD permitting process is one of the few avenues for the Forest Service to protect identified sensitive receptors from potential air pollution and acidic deposition impacts. There is enough visibility data to establish standard visual range values for Eagle's Nest and Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wildernesses. Other sensitive receptor data monitored in the Flat Tops and Maroon Bells-Snowmass Wildernesses and at the two NADP sites, is still not of sufficient quantity and scope to meet modeling and statistical requirements. There are other sensitive receptors in the WRNF for which there is currently little or no information. Continuous monitoring over long time periods and wider geographical areas is necessary to define limits of acceptable change, to detect changes in sensitive receptors, and to attribute causes to any observed changes. The monitoring opportunities discussed in previous chapters are intended as an overview of anticipated information needs.

In addition to the need to protect air quality related values in the Class I Air Quality Areas, the For- est has an obligation to ensure that Forest management actions and permitted activities are not resulting in violations of air quality standards. More complete analysis and mitigation to protect air quality will be necessary in the future than has been required in the past.

Table 12 identifies the air quality monitoring activities the Forest intends to implement. The priority and estimated costs of each activity are also listed. Total annual costs for the monitoring program are shown to be $131,150.00. However, this value includes $12,000 funded by the EPA, $5,000 funded by the USGS and start-up costs totalling $24,000. Due to very high competition for program funding most activities identified in the 1993 Air Resource Management Plan that were not implemented were dropped from Table 12. Thus, except for proposed lichen studies, the activities identified in Table 12 of this Plan respresent current, on-going programs. Estimated annual Forest costs are $89,250.

The air quality program as outlined in the Table 12 is an expanding program. Program responsibilities include coordination of partnerships; collection of samples; maintenance of equipment; training; coordination with the Regional Office, other Forests or Districts; supervision of technicians and volunteers; data management; and budgeting and public information. In the past, program management has been provided on a part-time basis.

Discussion regarding the establishment of an Air Resource Specialist position to be shared between the WRNF and an adjacent Forest (or Forests) has been ongoing since the 1993 Plan. Should such a position be established on the White River, additional staffing will be needed. Response to PSD permits may also require additional staffing.

VI-1 Table 12 WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST AIR QUALITY ACTION PLAN

START UP & SAMPLE ACTIVITY PRIORITY FUND BY EQUIP-COST ANALYSIS MANPOWER INCIDENTAL OVERHEAD TOTAL NOTES Program Mgt. & High FS N/A N/A $3500.00 N/A $1000.00 $4500.00 GS-12 PROGRAM MGT. Supervision High FS N/A N/A 6600.00 N/A 2000.00 8600.00 Air Spec. GS-11 (1/2 Yr) Sunlight NADP Site High PA N/A N/A 12000.00 N/A N/A 12000.00 Curr. Funding by EPA FT Lichen Resurvey High FS N/A N/A 10500.00 N/A 2600.00 13100.00 Contract - FY02 & FY03 MB-SM Lichen Study Medium FS 12000.00 N/A N/A N/A 3000.00 15000.00 Contract - 10 Yr Interv. EN Lichen Study Low FS 12000.00 N/A N/A N/A 3000.00 15000.00 Contract - 10 Yr Interv. Lake Chemistry EN Up. Willow Lk High FS N/A 120.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1720.00 Based on 3 Trips/Lk/Yr EN Booth Lk High FS N/A 120.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1720.00 & 4 Person Days/Trip MB-SM Upper Moon Lk High FS N/A 300.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1900.00 " MB-SM Capitol Lk High FS N/A 300.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1900.00 " MB-SM Avalanche High FS N/A 300.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1900.00 " CP Tabor Lk High FS N/A 300.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1900.00 " CP Brooklyn Lk High FS N/A 300.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1900.00 " HX Blodgett Lk High FS N/A 120.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1720.00 " HX Up. W. Tennessee High FS N/A 120.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1720.00 " HX Up. Turquoise Lk High FS N/A 120.00 1100.00 100.00 400.00 1720.00 " FT Ned Wilson Lk High USGS 5000.00 5000.00 Curr. funding by USGS Camera Sites-Visibility EN Vail Ski Area To West Peak High FS N/A 4800.00 3200.00 500.00 900.00 9400.00 Camera Install. - FY93 MB-SM Aspen Mtn. To Mt. Sopris High FS/AWW N/A 4800.00 3200.00 500.00 900.00 9400.00 Camera Install. - FY92 MB-SM Aspen Mtn. Sampler Install. - FY93 Partic. Sampler High FS N/A 6400.00 2000.00 200.00 550.00 9150.00 Operates 8 Mos./Yr - 2 Samples/Wk @ $100 each EN Compile Vascular Plant Data Medium CU/FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Air Spec. w/ CU Data EN Soil Parameters Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A By Air Specialist w/ FT Soil Parameters Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Soil Survey Information MB-SM Soil Param. Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A FT Amphib. Survey Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Amphibian Surveys to EN Amphib. Survey Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A be done in conjunction MB-SM Amph. Survey Medium FS N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A w/ Lake Chemistry Mon. Total Cost: $119250.00

VI-2 B. Training Needs

Air Resource Management is a relatively new program for the White River NF. Training for Forest personnel will be crucial to the full implementation of this plan. The types of training available may change from year to year, and many other sources for air resource management training are available in addition to the ones listed below.

The following list outlines some of the available training in Air ResourceManagement topics that may be of interest to those involved in monitoring oradministering any parts of the program.

Suggested Type of Training: Sponsored By: Audience:

1) R2-Air Res. Mgt. Overview Training Region 2-Lakewood 2,3,4,5

2) Smoke Management Techniques Region 2-Lakewood 2,4

3) Lake Monitoring - Hands on training R4 Bridger-Teton NF 1,4 Pinedale District

4) NADP Program and Technical Overview NADP-Champagne, IL 1,4

5) Air Quality Self Study Courses EPA-N.Carolina 2,4 (monitoring, modeling & regulatory)

6) Gaseous Pollutant Monitoring NPS-Denver 1,4

7) Biological Monitoring Techniques NPS-various 1,4

8) Air Quality NARTC-Mirana Az 2,4,5 for Managers & Specialists

9) Air Quality Modeling Training R-5,R-6 - Forest Service @ 4 various times and locations

1) District Field Personnel 2) District Resource Managers 3) District Rangers 4) Forest Air Resource Specialists 5) Forest Staff Officer

In addition to the above formal training opportunities, the WRNF hosts an annual 2 day workshop for District field personnel. The workshop focuses on lake chemistry and visibility monitoring. The training session is typically conducted in June.

VI-3 C. Quality Control

1. Project Organization and Responsibility

The Air Resource Management project organization is shown on the following diagram and generally indicates how responsibilities for air resource monitoring will flow.

Wilderness management on the WRNF is organized as follows:

1) Aspen and Sopris District Rangers are responsible for management of all or portions of the Maroon Bells/Snowmass, Hunter/Fryingpan, Collegiate Peaks and Raggeds Wildernesses. The Aspen/Sopris Wilderness Manager is responsible to the two District Rangers for supervision of field operations in the wilderness areas including air quality monitoring.

2) Sopris District is responsible for air quality monitoring at the NADP sites on Sunlight Peak.

3) The Blanco, Eagle and Rifle District Rangers are responsible for management of most of the Flat Tops Wilderness. The Flat Tops Wilderness Manager is responsible to the three District Rangers for supervision of field operations including air quality monitoring in the Flat Tops Wilderness.

4) Holy Cross and Eagle District Rangers are responsible for management of the Holy Cross Wilderness. The Dillon and Holy Cross District Rangers are responsible for management of the Eagles Nest Wilderness. In addition, the Dillon District Ranger is responsible for the Ptarmigan Peak Wilderness. The East Zone Wilderness Manager is responsible to the three District Rang- ers for supervision of field operations, including air quality monitoring in the three wilderness areas.

The field supervisors will be responsible for the technical adequacy of the data coming from the field. All are responsible for making sure any applicable quality control protocols are followed during data collection and sample handling.

2. Quality Assurance Objectives for Measurement Data: Precision, Accuracy, Completeness, Representativeness, and Comparability

Lichens: Lichen monitoring is a relatively new science, and few quantitative criteria for quality control are currently agreed upon by the scientific or regulatory communities. Therefore, the guidelines presented here are general: 1) Where appropriate, standard chemical, and chromatographic techniques should be used to finalize species identifications. 2) At least 5 replicates/species should be used for elemental concentration determinations. 3) Elemental analyses should be conducted using standard extraction and atomic absorption spectrophotometric procedures. 4) Adhere to any standards described in "Lichens as Bioindicators" (USDA 1993a).

Objectives in lichen monitoring should emphasize repeatability of measurements and observations at one site by utilizing comparable techniques over time, as well as for comparability of data obtained at one site with other sites across the Forest and Region.

VI-4 Vascular Plants: As vascular plant monitoring is currently at the level of literature reviews, quality control can best be maintained by referring to pertinent peer-reviewed journals. Specific Quality Assurance/Quality Control information will be developed as the Forest undertakes direct vegetation monitoring if it is deemed appropriate.

Plankton: Quantitative accuracy and precision limits for biological community measurements have not been established. Taxonomic accuracy is assured through use of appropriate taxonomic keys and descriptive reference literature in conjunction with competent taxonomists. Precision limits for biological samples are limited by the variance among sample replicates in field collections and in the laboratory. To ensure comparability of data with other organizations and agencies, total counts, total number of taxa, and total number per taxa will be reported. Samples shall be collected using a vertical tow Wisconsin style plankton net sampler composed of an 80 micron Nitex net with a detachable brass plankton bucket. Three vertical hauls will be made from the deepest part of the lake and the samples composited. The vertical tow will start one-half meter below the thermocline (one and one- half meters above the bottom if lake is not stratified). Each time the net is pulled up, the brass stop- per should be removed from the bucket and the contents washed from the bucket into the sampled bottle with formalin.

Amphibians: Amphibian monitoring should be conducted in accordance with US Fish and Wildlife guidelines to assure comparability of data. QA/QC is maintained by either having trained personnel (US F&WLS) conduct presence/absence surveys or have F&WLS personnel train FS employees on proper monitoring techniques.

Lake Chemistry: Field Protocols for long-term monitoring of lakes are listed in Appendix D.

Quality Assurance objectives for precision, accuracy, and completeness for water chemistry parameters are listed in Table 13. These objectives are based on prior knowledge of the measurement system employed and method validation studies using duplicates, spikes, and standards. Table 14 speci- fies reporting units and detection limits to ensure that data gathered is reported in units consistent with other organizations. This will allow comparability of data bases among organizations.

VI-5 Figure 3 - Flow Diagram of Air Resource Monitoring Organization - WRNF

VI-6 Table 13. Precision, Accuracy and Completeness for Water Chemistry Parameters

Parameter Method Ref Precision Accuracy* Completeness

Total Alkalinity (Field) Digital Titration Hach + 1 digit + 1.0% = 0.1 mg/l 90%

Total Alkalinity (Lab) Potentiometric Titration Zimmerman r2 = 0.999 Unknown 90%

Dissolved Aluminum (Total) DC Plasma **I-1054-85 20% @ 0.01 mg/l or less Unknown 90%

Dissolved Calcium ICPES I-1472-79 5% @0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Organic Carbon Persulfate Oxidation 0-0002-78 10% @1.0 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Chloride Ion Chromatography I-2058-84 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Flouride Ion Chromatography I-2058-84 5% @ 0.05 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Iron ICPES I-1472-79 10% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Lead AAGF I-1401-78 0.09X + 1.45 Unknown 90%

Dissolved Magnesium ICPES I-1472-79 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Manganese ICPES I-1472-79 10% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Ammonium as N Low Level Technicon USGS 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Nitrate as N Ion Chromatography I-2058-84 10% @ 0.05 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Ortho Phosphate as P Ion Chromatography I-2058-84 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

pH (Lab) Potentiometric EPA + 0.1 units + 0.1 90%

Total Dissolved Phosphate as P Low Level Technicon USGS 10% @ 0.01 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Potassium Flame AA USGS 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Silica ICPES I-1472-79 5% @ 0.5 mg/l Unknown 90%

Dissolved Sodium ICPES I-1472-79 5% @ 0.1 mg/l Unknown 90%

Specific Conductance (Lab) Conductivity Meter YSI 1% + 1% 90%

Dissolved Sulfate Ion Chromatography I-2058-84 5% @ 0.5 mg/l Unknown 90%

* The accuracy of each method can best be defined by the standard deviation obtained by a single analyst for repeated determinations on a natural sample of known concentration. Routinely, the accuracy can be assumed to be within the precision limits defined.

** Reference numbers refer to USGS moethodologies.

Table 14. Required Reporting Units and Detection Limits to Ensure Comparability of Databases with Other Organizations

Parameter Reporting Units Required Detection Limits

Total Alkalinity (Field) ueq/l 5.0

Total Alkalinity (Lab) ueg/l 5.0

Dissolved Aluminum (Total) ug/l 5.0

Dissolved Calcium mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Organic Carbon mg/l 0.1

Dissolved Chloride mg/l 0.01

Dissoled Flouride mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Iron mg/l 0.1

Dissolved Lead mg/l 0.1

Dissolved Magnesium mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Manganese mg/l 1.0

Dissolved Ammonium as N mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Nitrate as N mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Ortho Phosphate as P mg/l 0.01

pH pH units 0.05

Total Dissolved Phosphate as P mg/l 0.005

Dissolved Potassium mg/l 0.01

Dissolved Silica mg/l 0.05

Dissolved Sodium uS/cm 0.1

Specific Conductance (Lab) mg/l blank must be <0.9 uS/cm

Dissolved Sulfate mg/l 0.1 Table 15. - Maximum Control Limits for QC Samples

Parameter MCL (% Deviation from Theoretical Concentrations) Al + 10 Ca + 5 Al + 5 DOC + 10 F + 5 Fe + 10 K + 5 Mg + 5 Mn + 10 Na + 5

NH4 + 10 NO3 + 10 SiO2 + 5 SO4 + 5 Total P + 10 Table 16. Preservation Method and Holding Time for Water Sample Parameters

Parameter Container Preservation Method Holding Time Total Alkalinity (lab) 125 ml. poly bottle store @ 4oC 14 days Diss. Aluminum (total) 250 ml. teflon bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Calcium 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Organic Carbon 125 glass bottle filter, store @ 4oC 14 days Diss. Chloride 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days Diss. Fluoride 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days Diss. Iron 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Lead 250 ml. teflon bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Magnesium 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Manganese 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Ammonium 250 ml. brown poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days Diss. Nitrate as N 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 7 days Diss. Ortho Phosphate 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days as P pH 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 14 days Total Diss. Phosphate as 250 ml. brown poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days P Diss. Potassium 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Diss. Silica 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 28 days Diss. Sodium 250 ml. poly bottle filter acidity w/HNO3 pH<2 6 months Specific Conductance 250 ml. poly bottle none 14 days (lab) Diss. Sulfate 250 ml. poly bottle filter, store @ 4oC 28 days REFERENCES

Acheson, A. 1989. Bob Marshall Wilderness Air Quality Related Values Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Region 1, Missoula, MT.

Adams, D.B. and J.T. Turk. 1983. Sensitivity To Acidification Of Lakes In The Flat Tops Wilder- ness Area, Colorado. Water Resources Research, Vol-9, No. 2. 346-350 pp.

Baird, S.F., D. Buso, and J. Hornbeck. 1987. Acid pulses from snowmelt at acidic Cone Pond, New Hampshire. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 34:325-338.

Baldigo, B.P. and J.R. Baker, undated. Monitoring approaches for assessing quality of high altitude lakes: Colorado Flat Tops Wilderness Area. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV. Contract No. 68-03-3050, Project No. 32.04 by Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Co., Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Baldigo, B.P. undated. Macroinvertebrate and zooplankton data from the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness area lakes survey. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Las Vegas, NV. Contract No. 68-03-3050, Job Order 3204 by Lockheed Engineering and Man agement Services Co., Inc., Las Vegas, NV.

Berglund, D.L. and S. Eversman. 1988. Flow cytometric measurement of pollutant stresses on algal cells. Cytometry 9:150-155

Biological Methods Panel Committee on Oceanography, Division of Earth Sciences, National Re- search Council. 1969. Recommended procedures for measuring the productivity of plankton standing stock and related oceanic properties. Natl. Academy Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Brown, P.J. and G. Haas. 1980. Relationship between the resource attributes and psychological out comes perceived by wilderness recreationists. Trial Report 16-764-CA, 16-646-CA, 16-740-CA submitted to B.L. Driver, Recreation Research Project Leader, USFS Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO.

Brown, P.J., G. Haas, M. Marfredo. 1977. Identifying resource attributes providing opportunities for dispersed recreation. Final report 16-631-CA, 16-661-CA. Submitted to Richard S. Driscoll, USDA/USFS, Region 2, Denver, CO.

Bunin, J. Sensitivities of Colorado and Wyoming Wilderness Area Vascular Plants to Sulphur Diox- ide, Nitrogen Dioxide, and Ozone: An Overview. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, Region 2, Air, Aviation and Fire Management, Lakewood, CO. December 6, 1990.

Cadle, S.H., J. Dasch and N. Grossnickle. 1984. Retention and release of chemical species by a northern Michigan snowpack. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 22:303-319.

REF.-1 Cahill, T.A., R.A. Eldred and P.J. Feeney. 1985. Report prepared by the National Park Service Par- ticulate Network - Particulate Monitoring and Data Analysis for the National Park Service, 1982- 1985. Air Quality Group, University of California at Davis. 129 pp.

Cahill, T.A., R. Eldred, D. Shadoan, P. Feeney, B. Kusko, and Y. Matsuda. 1984. Complete elemental analysis of aerosols: PIXE, FAST, LIPM, and MASS. Nuclear Inst. and Methods in Physics Res. B3:291-295.

Campbell, D.H., J.T. Turk, and N.E. Spahr. Undated draft. Response Of A Rocky Mountain Water shed To Changes In Atmospheric Deposition Of Sulfate.

Clark, K.L. 1986a. Responses of spotted salamander, Ambystoma maculatum, populations in central Ontario to habitat acidity. Can. Field-Nat. 100:463-469.

Clark, K.L. 1986b. Distributions of anuran populations in central Ontario relative to habitat acidity. Water Air Soil Pollut. 30:727-734.

Colorado Climate Center. Average annual precipitation map, 1951-1980. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Colorado cooperative snow survey data. Annual data summary, water year 1991. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture.

Confer, J.L., T. Kaaret and G. Likens. 1983. Zooplankton diversity and biomass in recently acidified lakes. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 40:36-42.

Cosby, B.J., G. Hornberger, E. Rastetter, J. Galloway and R. Wright. 1986. Estimating catchment water quality response to acid deposition using models of soil ion exchange processes. Geo derma 38:77-95.

Davis, C.C. 1955. The marine and fresh water plankton. Mich. St. Univ. Press.

Eversman, S. 1978. Effects of low level SO2 on Usnea hirta and Parmelia chlorochroa. The Bryolo- gist 81(3):368-377.

Eversnan, S. 1988. Asst. Prof. Biology, Montana State University. Personal Communication.

Eversman, S. and L. Sigal. 1984. Ultrastructural effects of peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) on two lichen species: the Bryologist 87(2):112-118.

Fernandez, I.J. 1985. Acid deposition and forest soils: potential impacts and sensitivity. From Acid Deposition 1985; Adams, D.D. and W. Page, eds. Plenum Publishing Corp. 223-239.

Ferry, B.W., M. Buddely and D. Hawksworth, eds., 1973. Air Pollution and Lichens. Univ. of Tor- onto Press.

REF.-2 Fields, R.D. and L. St Clair. 1984. A comparison of methods for evaluating SO2 impacts on selected lichen species: Parmelia chlorochoa, Collema polycarpon and Lecanora muralis. The Bryologist 87(4):297-301

Fox, Douglas G., Dennis Haddow, and Dennis J. Murphy. 1981. Air quality, oil quality, oil shale, and wilderness - A workshop to identify and protect air quality related values of the Flat Tops. USDA Forest Service Technical Report RM-91.

Fox, D.G., J. Bernabo and B. Hood. 1987. Guidelines for measuring the physical, chemical, and biological condition of wilderness ecosystems. General tech. rep. RM-146, USDA/USFS Rocky Mtn. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO.

Freda, J. and W.A. Dunson. 1986. Effects of low pH and other chemical variables on the local distribution of amphibians. Copeia 1986:454-466.

Galloway, J., G. Hendrey, C. Schofield, N. Peters and A. Johannes. 1987. Processes and causes of lake acidification during spring snowmelt in the west-central Adirondack mountains, New York . Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:1595-1602.

Gascon, C. and D. Planas. 1986. Spring pond water chemistry and the reproduction of the wood frog, Rana Sylvatica. Can. J. Zool. 64:543-550.

Geiser, L.H., C.C. Derr, and K.L. Dillman. Air Quality Monitoring on the Tongass National Forest, Methods and Baselines Using Lichens. USDA, Forest Service, Alaska Region, Tongass Na- tional Forest, Petersburg, AK. Report No. R10-TB-46, September, 1994.

Gibson, J.H. 1990. Colorado-Wyoming wilderness areas wet chemical deposition estimates. Unpub lished paper. National Atmospheric Deposition Program, Natural Resource Ecology Laboratory, Colorado State University.

Gosner, K.L. and I.H. Black. 1957. The effects of acidity on the development and hatching of New Jersey frogs. Ecology 38:256-262.

Hale, M.E. 1979. How to Know the Lichens, 2nd ed. Wm. C. Brown Company Publishers, Dubu- que, Iowa, 246 pp.

Hale, M.E. 1982. Lichens as bioindicators and monitors of air pollution in the Flat Tops Wilderness area, Colorado. Final Report; Forest Service Contract No. OM RFP R2-81-SP35. 22 November 1982.

Harte, J. and E. Hoffman. 1989. Possible effects of acidic deposition on Rocky Mountain population of the Tiger Salamander, Ambystoma Tigrinum. Conserv. Biol. 3:2., 149-158.

Havens, K. and J. DeCosta. 1985. The effect of acidification in enclosures on the biomass and population size structure of Bosmina longirostris. Hydrobiologia 122:153-158.

REF.-3 Hawksworth, D.L. and F. Rose. 1976. Lichens as pollution monitors. Inst. Biol. Stud., in Biology No. 66, Edward Arnold Ltd., London.

Hogan, T. 1992. A floristic survey of the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area in the southern Gore Range of central Colorado. Natural History of Colorado, No. 12. University of Colorado Museum, Boulder, Colorado. ISSN 0890-6882. Jackson, L.L., L. Geiser, T. Blett, C. Gries, and D. Haddow. Biogeochemistry of Lichens and Mosses in and near Mt. Zirkel Wilderness, Routt National Forest, Colorado: Influences of Coal- Fired Power Plant Emissions. USDI, U.S.Geological Survey, Denver, CO. Open-File Report 96-295, 1996.

Karns, D.R. 1984. Toxic bog water in northern Minnesota peatlands: Ecological and evolutionary consequences for breeding amphibians. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Minnesota. 164 pp.

Keller, W. and J. Pitblado. 1984. Crustacean plankton in northeastern Ontario lakes subjected to acidic deposition. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 23:271-291.

Lawrey, J.D. 1984. Biology of lichenized fungi. Praeger Publishers, NY. Lawrey, J.D. and M. Hale, Jr., 1988. Lichen evidence for changes in atmospheric deposition in Shenandoah Natl. Park, Va. The Bryologist 91(1):21-23.

Lawrey, J.D. and M. Hale, Jr., 1988. Lichen evidence for changes in atmospheric deposition in Shenandoah National Park Va. The Bryologist 91(1):21-23.

Leuven, R.S.E.W., C. den Hartog, M.M.C. Christiaans, and W.H.C. Heiligers. 1986. Effects of water acidification on the distribution pattern and the reproductive success of amphibians. Experientia 42:495-503.

Malley, D.F. and P. Chang. 1986. Increase in the abundance of cladocera at pH 5.1 in experimentally acidified lake 223, experimental lakes area, Ontario. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 30:629-638.

McKnight, D., M. Brenner, R. Smith and J. Baron. 1986. Seasonal changes in phytoplankton populations and related chemical and physical characteristics in lakes in Loch Vale, Rocky Mtn. Natl. Park, CO. USGS Water Res. Investigations Report 86-4101. 64 pp.

Mills, K.H. and D. Schindler. 1986. Biological indicators of lake acidification. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 30:779-789.

Nash III, T.H., C. Gries, M. Sanchez, W. Davis and J. Marsh. 1992. Flat Tops Wilderness area lichen survey, 1992. Final Report; Forest Service Contract No. RFQ-R2-15-92-09. 24 May 1993.

Nash III, T.H., M. Boykin, et al. 1992. Floristic survey of the lichens of the Flat Tops Wilderness area, 1992. Final Report; Forest Service Contract No. 40-82D7-3-0189. 30 June 1993.

Nash III, T.H. and V.W. Wirth (eds.). 1988. Lichens, Bryophytes and Air Quality. In: Bibliotheca Lichenologica, Band 30. J.Cramer in der Gebruder Borntraeger Verlagsbuchhandlung, Berlin, Germany, 297 pp.

REF.-4 National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 1987. NADP Annual data summary, precipitation chemistry in the U.S., 1986. Natural Res. Ecol. Lab., Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO.

Phillip, S.F., D. Wotton and D. McEachern. 1986. Snow chemistry in the Flin Flon area of Mani- toba, 1981-1984. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 30:253-261.

Price, E.E. and M. Seift. 1985. Inter- and intra- specific variability in the response of zooplankton to acid stress. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 42:1749-1754.

Schindler, D.W. 1987. Detecting ecosystem responses to anthropogenic stress. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44(Suppl.1):6-25.

Schindler, D.W. 1985. Long term ecosystem stress: the effects of years of experimental acidification on a small lake. Science 228:1395-1401.

Soholt, L.F, and S. Wiedenbaum. 1981. Oil Shale: Its Development and Potential for Air Quality Effects. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Services Program, National Power Develop- ment Group, FWS/OBS-81/34.

Sprules, W.G. 1975. Midsummer crustacean zooplankton communities in acid stressed lakes. J. Fish, Res. Board. Can. 32:389-395.

State of Colorado. 1989. Colorado Plant Species of Special Concern. May 1989. Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Colorado Natural Areas.

Stottlemyer, R. 1987. Snowpack ion accumulation and loss in a basin draining to Lake Superior. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 44:1812-1819.

Turk, J.T. and D.H. Campbell. 1997. Are Aquatic Resources of the Mt. Zirkel Wilderness Area in Colorado Affected by Acid Deposition and What Will Emissions Reductions at the Local Power Plants Do? USDI, U.S. Geological Survey, Fact Sheet FS-043-97.

USDA, Forest Service. 1993a. Lichens as Bioindicators of Air Quality. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. General Technical Report RM-224. 131 pp.

USDA, Forest Service. 1993b. Managing Air Resources in the Rocky Mountain Region. U.S. For- est Service, Rocky Mountain Region, Denver, CO.

USDA, Forest Service. 1994. A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analyses. Prepared for the Forest Service by CH2MHill, April, 1995.

USEPA. 1993. Interagency Workgroup on Air Quality Modeling (IWAQM) Phase 1 Report: In- terim Recommendation for Modeling Long Range Transport and Impacts on Regional Visibility. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC. Report No. EPA-454/R-93-015. April, 1993.

REF.-5 USDI, Fish and Wildlife Service. 1989. Acid Precipitation Studies In Colorado And Wyoming: In- terim Report Of Surveys Of Montane Amphibians And Water Chemistry. Biological Report 80(40:26) 2 pp.

Vanderhorst, J.P. 1992. Floristic Survey of the Flat Tops, White River Plateau and Vicinity, Colo- rado: Colorado Plant Species of Special Concern. Final Report to the Nature Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Herbarium, University of Wyoming, Larimie, WY.

Vanderhorst, J.P. 1993. Flora of the Flat Tops, White River Plateau and Vicinity in Northwestern Colorado. A thesis submitted to the Department of Botany and the Graduate School of the Uni- versity of Wyoming in partial fulfillment of requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Botany, Laramie, WY, May, 1993.

Walsh, R.G., R. Gillman and J. Loomis. 1981. Wilderness resource economics: recreation use and preservation values. (Draft) Dept. Econ., Colo. St. Univ., Ft. Collins, CO.

Wetzel, R.G. and G.E.Likens. 1979. Limnological Analyses. W.B.Saunders, Philadelphia, PA.

Yan, N.D. and W. Geiling. 1985. Elevated planktonic rotifer biomass in acidified metal- -contaminated lakes near Sudbury, Ontario. Hydrobiologia 120:199-205.

Yan, N.D. and R. Strus. 1980. Crustacean zooplankton communities of acidic, metal-contaminated lakes near Sudbury, Ontario. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 37:2282-2293.

Zakshek, E.M., K. Puckett and K. Percy. 1986. Lichen, sulfur and lead levels in relation to deposition patterns in eastern Canada. Water, Air and Soil Pollution 30:161-169.

REF.-6 Appendix A Fish-stocked Wilderness Lakes and Streams

For more information, please contact the White River National Forest.

Page A-1 APPENDIX B POLLUTION-SENSITIVE LICHENS

(FROM LITERATURE REVIEW)

GENUS SPECIES SENSITIVITY SYMPTOM REFERENCE

Alectoria Sarmentosa SO2 increase photosyn rate; increase respiration rate a, b, j

*Bryoria fuscescens SO2 j Cladina rangifernia SO2, metals K efflux, S, b, c Pb uptake Cladina stellaris acid ppt, decrease growth; b metals Pb uptake

*Cladonia coniocraea SO2 j *Cladonia fimbriata SO2 j Cladonia impexa SO2, radiation radiation uptake b *Collema polycarpon SO2 decreased photosyn.; d increase cond.; F ef. 2 *Collema tenax SO2, metals decreased N fix.; b Pb uptake

Evernia prunasti SO2 increased cond. b Flavoparmelia S S uptake e baltimorensis Hypogymnia PAN decreased photosyn; f enteromorpha

Hypogymnia physodes SO2 b *Lecanora muralis SO2 decreased photosyn, respir.; g, b increased cond., K eff.

*Lecanora varia SO2 j 2 Lobaria sp. SO2, acid ppt decreased N fixation, photosyn; b yellowing, plasmolysis h, g

Parmelia rudecta metals Cr. uptake b

Parmelia sulcata O3, PAN decreased photosyn f, b *Peltigera canina SO2 very sensitive j *Physcia adscendens SO2 j *Physcia aipolia SO2 j *Physcia caesia SO2 j Pseudoparmelia metals Pb uptake b baltimorensis

B-1 APPENDIX B (cont.) POLLUTION-SENSITIVE LICHENS

(FROM LITERATURE REVIEW)

GENUS SPECIES SENSITIVITY SYMPTOM REFERENCE

Pseudoparmelia SO2, metals decreased chlorophyll; b caperata Cr uptake Ramalina sp. radiation rad. uptake b

Sticta sp. SO2 b Umbilicaria acid pptn. necrosis of thallus a, b mammulata Usnea fulvoreagens acid pptn. chlorophyll i autofluoresc. shift

Usnea hirta SO2 yellowing, plasmolysis h, j decreased respir.

*Usnea sp. SO2, acid pptn. bleaching, rad. uptake a, b, j radiation very sensitive *Xamthoparmelia metals Pb uptake a, b conspersa

*Xanthoria candelaria SO2 j *Xanthoria polycarpa SO2 j

a) Eversman, 1988. f) Eversman, 1984. b) Lawrey, 1984. g) Fields, 1984. c) Zakshek, 1986. h) Eversman, 1978. d) Galloway, 1987. i) Berglund, 1988. e) Lawrey, 1988. j) Geiser, 1994. * = species found on White River National Forest

B-2 APPENDIX C EPA Western Lakes Survey (1985) Sample Locations in White River NF Wildernesses

Alkalinity (ueq/l) FLAT TOPS WILDERNESS No-name #4E3-012 1089 Little Trappers 958 No-name #4E3-061 118 No-name #4E2-063 448 Deer 335 Surprise 131 Twin Lakes (south) 193 Oyster 210 Ned Wilson 50 HOLY CROSS WILDERNESS Paradise 137 Fancy 117 HUNTER-FRYING PAN WILDERNESS Independence 219 Granite 73 MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS WILDERNESS No-name #4E3-032 181 Pierre 64 EAGLES NEST WILDERNESS Upper Piney 159 No-name #4E3-021 305 COLLEGIATE PEAKS WILDERNESS Grizzly 663

C-1 Water Chemistry Data Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Avalanche Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 910613 2.0 7.15 32.88 3.99 0.23 0.53 0.19 0.01 0.16 1.52 1.81 203.00 910718 7.0 6.98 21.77 3.23 0.18 0.50 0.23 0.00 0.11 0.87 1.25 173.40 910814 11.0 7.08 27.83 3.88 0.21 0.57 0.18 0.01 0.13 0.50 1.38 220.35 920630 9.0 7.07 27.06 3.84 0.24 0.62 0.20 0.00 0.18 0.80 1.42 204.50 920728 9.5 7.10 26.03 3.25 0.16 0.45 0.15 0.02 0.12 0.68 0.32 205.00 920817 -- 7.32 28.25 3.88 0.21 0.75 0.24 0.05 0.00 0.17 0.71 207.00 930715 7.13 20.08 4.08 0.25 0.58 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.81 1.23 186.50 930808 7.10 19.35 3.54 0.20 0.55 0.21 0.00 0.14 0.57 1.21 182.20 930816 7.29 25.36 3.79 0.21 0.62 0.24 0.00 0.19 0.50 1.24 195.70 940707 7.09 19.36 3.26 0.21 0.49 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.62 1.10 169.80 940805 7.19 20.15 3.57 0.21 0.67 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.48 1.60 188.30 940909 7.18 21.97 3.96 0.22 0.82 0.24 0.01 0.26 0.59 1.30 207.90 950720 6.54 25.76 3.96 0.24 0.56 0.18 0.01 0.11 0.95 1.14 194.00 950813 6.63 26.19 2.62 0.13 0.36 0.05 0.00 0.07 0.74 0.88 155.00 950826 6.58 17.72 3.35 0.57 0.56 0.21 0.02 0.16 0.69 1.10 171.00 960710 6.12 16.60 3.59 0.20 0.42 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.67 0.98 163.30 960808 6.93 18.35 3.39 0.19 0.52 0.15 0.00 0.08 0.40 0.97 199.60 960907 6.58 20.39 4.14 0.20 0.65 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.36 1.04 208.80 970706 6.86 19.74 3.65 0.19 0.52 0.14 0.00 0.11 0.74 1.22 183.70 970726 6.83 17.48 3.05 0.17 0.47 0.16 0.00 0.24 0.69 1.02 156.50 970914 6.99 28.54 4.72 0.22 0.72 0.18 0.03 0.13 0.69 1.38 230.90 Avalanche Lake Avalanche Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

7.50 35.00 30.00 7.00 25.00 20.00 6.50 pH 15.00 6.00 10.00 Conductivity 5.00 5.50 0.00 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914

Date Date

Avalanche Lake Avalanche Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.30 2.00 0.25 1.50 0.20 0.15 Cl 1.00 0.10 SO4 0.50 0.05

0.00 0.00 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914

Date Date

Avalanche Lake Avalanche Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

2.00 250.00 200.00 1.50 150.00 1.00 ANC NO3 100.00 0.50 50.00 0.00 0.00 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914 910613 910814 920728 930715 930816 940805 950720 950826 960808 970706 970914

Date Date Water Chemistry Data Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Capitol Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 910614 6.38 9.62 1.27 0.15 0.21 0.14 0.02 0.17 1.58 0.46 39.10 910719 7.0 7.00 30.69 3.23 0.55 0.56 0.25 0.01 0.23 0.82 1.40 210.40 910815 10.0 7.03 25.57 3.28 0.54 0.53 0.23 0.02 0.16 0.58 1.27 212.60 920701 2.0 7.19 25.88 3.16 0.51 0.53 0.23 0.01 0.19 0.90 1.27 190.00 920729 9.0 6.97 27.58 3.08 0.46 0.42 0.17 0.03 0.14 0.77 1.34 228.00 920821 13.0 7.08 27.62 3.44 0.65 0.54 0.20 0.02 0.12 0.60 1.32 206.00 930715 7.05 19.97 3.39 0.59 0.53 0.18 0.00 0.12 0.23 0.28 175.90 930809 7.20 29.38 4.05 0.79 0.67 0.29 0.00 0.22 0.79 1.41 235.20 930817 7.41 28.66 3.97 0.78 0.62 0.24 0.00 0.15 0.70 1.34 238.70 940707 7.20 29.92 3.69 0.70 0.64 0.25 0.05 0.18 0.79 1.35 226.80 940805 7.24 28.76 3.70 0.70 0.59 0.22 0.01 0.13 0.59 1.32 225.00 940909 7.12 22.46 3.68 0.63 0.63 0.23 0.00 0.15 0.59 1.30 218.10 950720 6.44 17.35 2.80 0.50 0.47 0.20 0.00 0.15 1.47 1.14 139.60 950813 6.60 21.66 3.24 0.59 0.49 0.12 0.00 0.13 0.98 1.20 217.20 950827 6.71 27.20 1.16 0.07 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.34 218.30 960710 6.66 20.64 4.07 0.66 0.53 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.75 1.15 213.30 960808 6.96 20.87 3.64 0.64 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.09 0.48 1.06 228.20 960907 7.04 20.85 3.48 0.62 0.53 0.19 0.00 0.09 0.40 1.01 221.70 970707 6.80 18.94 2.98 0.50 0.49 0.19 0.00 0.16 1.31 1.21 163.70 970727 6.89 22.33 3.64 0.60 0.54 0.20 0.00 0.12 0.87 1.23 211.40 970914 6.85 21.11 3.49 0.57 0.54 0.19 0.03 0.12 0.63 1.20 208.20 Capitol Lake Capitol Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.25 7.50

0.20 7.00 0.15 6.50 0.10 Cl(mg/l) pH(units) 6.00 0.05 0.00 5.50 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date

Capitol Lake Capitol Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

2.00 35.00 30.00 1.50 25.00 20.00 1.00 15.00 Spec. 10.00 NO3(mg/l) 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 Conductance(uS/cm) 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date

Capitol Lake Capitol Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.50 300.00 250.00 1.00 200.00 150.00 0.50 ANC 100.00 SO4(mg/l) 50.00 0.00 0.00 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Moon Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 910625 3.0 6.51 12.84 1.65 0.11 0.21 0.12 0.01 0.12 1.28 0.73 66.60 910719 8.0 7.42 10.62 1.35 0.09 0.24 0.12 0.01 0.16 0.98 0.67 1334.40 910815 10.0 6.66 9.71 1.48 0.10 0.24 0.13 0.00 0.14 0.45 0.53 78.10 920701 6.0 6.69 11.65 1.93 0.12 0.41 0.19 0.05 0.29 0.94 0.83 83.30 920729 9.0 6.69 11.02 1.51 0.08 0.37 0.15 0.03 0.31 0.58 0.54 83.55 920821 13.0 6.82 10.60 1.71 0.10 0.23 0.11 0.01 0.09 0.65 0.54 80.20 930714 6.67 9.75 1.76 0.12 0.29 0.09 0.00 0.12 1.15 0.82 58.70 930809 6.71 7.87 1.36 0.07 0.16 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.53 0.50 55.60 930817 6.89 8.23 1.36 0.08 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.12 0.47 0.49 65.70 940707 6.71 8.08 1.14 0.07 0.22 0.11 0.02 0.13 0.67 0.53 52.20 940805 6.65 8.17 1.13 0.07 0.25 0.14 0.01 0.16 0.59 0.46 54.80 940908 6.83 10.22 1.72 0.11 0.32 0.14 0.01 0.16 0.64 0.73 77.80 950721 6.14 9.75 1.57 0.08 0.21 0.11 0.00 0.10 1.12 0.58 58.50 950811 6.45 15.74 0.99 0.03 0.16 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.79 0.42 56.90 950825 6.21 6.72 3.03 0.20 0.42 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.49 0.91 50.30 960712 5.68 6.95 1.32 0.09 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.05 0.71 0.47 48.90 960809 5.78 6.72 1.08 0.07 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.52 0.39 57.20 960908 6.48 7.85 1.24 0.08 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.07 0.56 0.45 64.10 970706 6.41 8.84 1.28 0.08 0.22 0.07 0.00 0.10 0.97 0.64 51.50 970726 6.47 7.87 1.20 0.07 0.26 0.14 0.02 0.28 0.66 0.48 49.20 970915 6.74 10.53 1.83 0.09 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.11 0.66 0.61 84.10 Moon Lake Moon Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.35 1.40 0.30 1.20 0.25 1.00 0.20 0.80 0.15 0.60

Cl (mg/l) 0.10 0.40 0.05 NO3 (mg/l) 0.20 0.00 0.00 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 Date Date

Moon Lake Moon Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.00 250.00 0.80 200.00 0.60 150.00

0.40 ANC 100.00

SO4 (mg/l) 0.20 50.00 0.00 0.00 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 Date Date

Moon Lake Moon Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

8.00 20.00

6.00 15.00

4.00 10.00 5.00 pH (units) 2.00 0.00 Spec. Cond. (uS/cm) 0.00 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 9E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 1E+0 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Eagle's Nest Wilderness Upper Willow Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 900822 6.0 6.98 18.64 1.65 0.48 0.02 0.18 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.71 178.5 940716 7.12 13.04 1.92 0.37 0.23 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.44 124.0 950814 6.51 14.66 2.02 0.45 0.18 0.12 0.00 0.04 0.42 0.39 155.0 950911 6.88 27.08 2.54 0.45 0.22 0.12 0.00 0.05 0.18 0.50 294.3 950930 6.62 17.95 2.50 0.47 0.32 0.12 0.00 0.08 0.28 0.67 188.2 960711 6.58 11.29 1.86 0.34 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.40 0.39 114.1 960802 6.21 12.08 2.01 0.37 0.20 0.10 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.31 137.2 960916 6.43 15.68 2.83 0.52 0.26 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.60 166.6 970714 6.71 15.22 2.27 0.41 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.45 0.48 148.30 970813 6.74 14.36 2.34 0.42 0.23 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.37 0.55 137.80 Upper Willow Lake Upper Willow Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

7.20 30.00 7.00 25.00 6.80 6.60 20.00 6.40

pH 15.00 6.20 10.00 6.00 5.80 5.00 5.60 Conductivity (uhmos) 0.00 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813 Date Date

Upper Willow Lake Upper Willow Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.10 0.80 0.70 0.08 0.60 0.06 0.50 0.40 0.04 0.30 Cl (mg/l) SO4 (mg/l) 0.20 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 900822 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813 Date Date

Upper Willow Lake Upper Willow Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.50 350.0 0.40 300.0 250.0 0.30 200.0 0.20 150.0 100.0 NO3 (mg.l) 0.10 ANC (ueq/l) 50.0 0.00 0.0 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813 940716 950814 950911 950930 960711 960802 960916 970714 970813

Date Date Water Chemistry Data Eagle's Nest Wilderness Booth Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 950813 6.47 14.00 1.45 0.60 0.19 0.14 0.02 0.10 0.19 0.50 144.90 950909 6.53 9.98 1.28 0.47 0.21 0.12 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.64 107.20 950925 6.54 9.54 1.32 0.51 0.27 0.18 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.41 103.30 960702 6.04 9.92 1.27 0.46 0.20 0.13 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.50 100.30 960724 6.04 10.05 1.29 0.47 0.18 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.47 95.50 960831 6.02 9.00 1.24 0.47 0.22 0.15 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.37 110.20 970629 6.68 9.69 1.12 0.42 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.32 0.55 84.10 970804 6.70 10.85 1.26 0.48 0.24 0.48 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.47 106.80 970829 6.64 11.60 1.31 0.51 0.31 0.17 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.49 112.10 Booth Lake Booth Lake Water Chemistry Data Date

6.80 15.00 6.60 6.40 10.00 6.20 6.54 9.54 6.00 5.00 5.80 5.60 0.00 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 Date Date

Booth Lake Booth Lake Date Date

0.12 0.70 0.10 0.60 0.50 0.08 0.40 0.06

0.06 SO4 0.30 0.04 0.20 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 Date Date

Booth Lake Booth Lake Date Date

0.35 200.00 0.30 0.25 150.00 0.20 100.00 0.15 0.10 50.00 NO3 (mg.l) ANC (ueq/l) 0.05 0.00 0.00 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 950813 950909 950925 960702 960724 960831 970629 970804 970829 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Collegiate Peaks Wilderness Tabor Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 910621 0.5 6.86 18.64 - - - - - 0.14 0.82 0.75 138.30 910724 8.0 7.11 18.10 - - - - 0.04 0.10 0.18 1.13 145.40 910820 11.0 6.89 16.09 - - - - - 0.09 0.00 1.15 149.90 920626 2.0 7.07 14.39 2.48 0.19 0.38 0.12 0.01 0.13 0.66 0.85 122.00 920729 8.0 6.90 16.24 2.73 0.19 0.35 0.13 0.04 0.11 0.07 1.16 148.00 920813 12.5 7.09 16.41 2.82 0.18 0.41 0.10 0.01 0.11 0.00 1.12 144.00 930708 6.94 13.60 2.69 0.20 0.39 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.69 0.71 123.00 930802 7.09 14.20 2.56 0.19 0.44 0.20 0.00 0.21 0.35 1.17 129.70 930813 6.90 14.01 2.63 0.20 0.36 0.14 0.00 0.09 0.10 1.18 133.90 940614 6.77 13.30 2.34 0.19 0.32 0.09 0.01 0.07 0.68 0.79 110.60 940728 7.10 15.02 2.62 0.20 0.37 0.10 0.00 0.10 0.00 1.06 135.20 940902 7.08 14.60 2.72 0.20 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.07 0.00 1.22 143.60 950726 6.39 11.70 1.86 0.18 0.37 0.15 0.02 0.14 0.46 0.33 108.60 950818 6.62 14.82 2.16 0.20 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.16 0.99 135.00 950901 6.56 14.52 2.06 0.19 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.11 0.05 0.92 135.00 960723 6.05 13.21 2.57 0.18 0.27 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.79 128.10 960815 6.04 11.76 2.15 0.15 0.27 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.71 125.00 960912 6.41 12.14 2.16 0.15 0.32 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.89 112.50 970628 6.80 13.08 2.18 0.17 0.30 0.08 0.00 0.06 0.23 0.62 114.50 970723 6.74 14.09 2.33 0.17 0.31 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.21 0.97 126.70 970924 6.80 12.25 2.64 0.18 0.33 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.00 1.16 136.10 Tabor Lake Tabor Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

7.50 20.00

7.00 15.00

6.50

pH 10.00

6.00 5.00 Conductivity

5.50 0.00 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924

Date Date

Tabor Lake Tabor Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.25 1.40 0.20 1.20 1.00 0.15 0.80 Cl

0.10 SO4 0.60 0.40 0.05 0.20 0.00 0.00 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924

Date Date

Tabor Lake Tabor Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.00 200.00

0.80 150.00 0.60 100.00 ANC NO3 0.40 0.20 50.00 0.00 0.00 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924 910621 910820 920729 930708 930813 940728 950726 950901 960815 970628 970924

Date Date Water Chemistry Data Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Brooklyn Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 910702 1.0 6.52 17.18 2.30 0.19 0.35 0.18 0.03 0.17 0.73 2.05 102.10 910725 4.0 6.79 30.41 - - - - 0.03 0.12 0.80 3.56 132.10 910821 11.0 7.11 34.70 - - - - - 0.12 0.17 6.25 177.90 920706 5.5 7.37 33.86 4.77 0.47 0.63 0.26 0.03 0.25 0.36 5.22 211.00 920722 6.0 7.05 32.78 4.33 0.38 0.51 0.18 0.06 0.09 0.07 4.50 193.00 920814 11.0 7.34 40.57 5.37 0.56 0.66 0.19 0.00 0.16 0.00 6.54 220.00 930719 7.10 31.37 4.93 0.50 0.55 0.15 0.00 0.07 0.32 4.29 191.60 930803 7.24 27.01 3.82 0.40 0.55 0.20 0.00 0.21 0.14 3.94 156.10 930813 7.06 29.07 4.47 0.45 0.47 0.16 0.00 0.09 0.08 4.72 172.50 940623 6.82 15.03 2.59 0.25 0.40 0.16 0.02 0.14 0.60 1.87 108.50 940812 7.21 36.44 5.55 0.57 0.67 0.23 0.01 0.16 0.00 5.88 219.00 940821 7.04 39.60 6.15 0.55 0.66 0.21 0.03 0.11 0.00 6.90 236.50 950803 6.37 16.01 2.50 0.24 0.35 0.17 0.01 0.10 0.49 2.04 100.30 950819 6.69 21.68 3.56 0.36 0.35 0.11 0.00 0.02 0.22 3.71 151.70 950901 6.63 29.40 4.10 0.40 0.43 0.15 0.00 0.09 0.45 4.54 167.90 960719 6.11 19.04 3.87 0.33 0.33 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.09 3.01 144.70 960816 6.92 34.88 5.29 0.47 0.49 0.15 0.00 0.05 0.00 5.57 203.00 960910 6.50 43.18 5.78 0.66 0.69 0.22 0.00 0.20 0.04 8.38 234.00 970629 6.69 15.78 2.63 0.21 0.23 0.10 0.00 0.05 0.44 2.26 93.00 970718 6.83 29.64 4.22 0.37 0.48 0.13 0.00 0.07 0.38 4.18 165.70 970925 7.01 52.04 10.94 0.94 0.88 0.19 0.04 0.10 0.23 16.51 298.80 Brooklyn Lake Brooklyn Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.30 8.00 0.25 6.00 0.20 0.15 4.00

Cl(mg/l) 0.10 pH(units) 2.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date

Brooklyn Lake Brooklyn Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.00 60.00 0.80 50.00 40.00 0.60

) 30.00 0.40 Spec. 20.00 NO3(mg/l) 0.20 10.00 0.00 0.00 Conductance(uS/cm 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date

Brooklyn Lake Brooklyn Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

20.00 350.00 300.00 15.00 250.00 200.00 10.00

ANC 150.00 100.00 SO4(mg/l) 5.00 50.00 0.00 0.00 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 9E+05 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 1E+06 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Holy Cross Wilderness Blodgett Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 940904 - 6.80 7.97 0.89 0.13 0.24 0.14 0.01 0.10 0.00 0.63 67.50 950904 - 6.65 7.02 0.95 0.14 0.18 0.09 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.45 61.50 960704 - 5.70 6.06 0.78 0.12 0.11 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.25 0.44 36.90 960725 - 5.95 7.42 1.03 0.16 0.16 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.49 65.00 960915 - 6.00 6.67 0.94 0.15 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.07 0.44 61.70 970708 - 6.55 6.47 0.73 0.11 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.32 0.49 47.00 970805 - 6.65 6.46 0.88 0.13 0.17 0.09 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.46 50.30 970831 - 6.61 6.85 0.85 0.13 0.21 0.10 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.48 55.00 Blodgett Lake Blodgett Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

7.00 10.00

6.50 8.00 6.00 6.00 pH 4.00 5.50 2.00

5.00 Conductiviey (umhos) 0.00 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 Date Date

Blodgett Lake Blodgett Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.10 0.70 0.08 0.60 0.50 0.06 0.40 0.04 0.30 Cl (mg/l)

SO4 (mg/l) 0.20 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 Date Date

Blodgett Lake Blodgett Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.35 80.00 0.30 0.25 60.00 0.20 40.00 0.15 0.10 20.00 ANC (ueq/l) NO3 (mg/l) 0.05 0.00 0.00 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 940904 950904 960704 960725 960915 970708 970805 970831 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Holy Cross Wilderness Upper West Tennessee Lake

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 960703 6.19 12.44 1.51 0.25 0.39 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.36 0.96 104.30 960727 6.20 11.58 1.81 0.35 0.28 0.25 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.65 119.60 960830 6.21 12.78 2.09 0.42 0.35 0.28 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.83 144.00 970625 6.62 13.78 1.81 0.35 0.32 0.24 0.00 0.07 0.16 0.82 120.00 970728 6.74 12.01 1.71 0.34 0.31 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.65 114.20 970822 6.66 14.00 2.12 0.38 0.41 0.21 0.00 0.05 0.00 1.15 125.00 Upper West Tennessee Lake Upper West Tennessee Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.10 6.80 0.08 6.60 0.06 6.40 0.04 6.20 Cl(mg/l) 0.02 pH(units) 6.00 0.00 5.80 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 Date Date

Upper West Tennessee Lake Upper West Tennessee Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.40 15.00

0.30 10.00

0.20 )

Spec. 5.00

NO3(mg/l) 0.10

0.00 0.00 Conductance(uS/cm 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 Date Date

Upper West Tennessee Lake Upper West Tennessee Lake Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.40 200.00 1.20 1.00 150.00 0.80 100.00

0.60 ANC 0.40 SO4(mg/l) 50.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 960703 960727 960830 970625 970728 970822 Date Date Water Chemistry Data Holy Cross Wilderness Upper Turquoise

Date Temp pH Conductivity Ca Mg Na K NH4 Cl NO3 SO4 ANC (Celcius) (umhos) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/l) (ueq/l) 940709 6.95 12.68 1.58 0.28 0.44 0.21 0.03 0.09 0.23 1.03 98.80 960705 6.19 12.44 1.51 0.25 0.39 0.21 0.00 0.08 0.36 0.96 104.30 960807 6.75 12.62 1.67 0.27 0.42 0.20 0.00 0.08 0.14 1.01 132.30 960909 6.96 12.38 1.82 0.30 0.47 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.82 126.10 970707 6.82 13.68 1.87 0.30 0.46 0.21 0.00 0.10 0.17 1.14 109.20 970729 6.71 12.14 1.71 0.26 0.41 0.21 0.03 0.07 0.34 0.99 97.90 970913 6.90 14.33 2.31 0.32 0.53 0.23 0.02 0.10 0.00 1.26 128.30 Upper Turquoise Upper Turquoise Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

0.12 0.40 0.10 0.30 0.08 0.06 0.20 0.04 Cl (mg/l)

NO3 (mg/l) 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 Date Date

Upper Turquoise Upper Turquoise Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

1.40 250.00 1.20 200.00 1.00 0.80 150.00 0.60 ANC 100.00 0.40 SO4 (mg/l) 50.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 Date Date

Upper Turquoise Upper Turquoise Water Chemistry Data Water Chemistry Data

7.20 14.50 7.00 14.00 6.80 13.50 6.60 13.00 6.40 12.50 6.20 12.00 pH (units) 6.00 5.80 11.50

5.60 Spec. Cond. (uS/cm) 11.00 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 940709 960705 960807 960909 970707 970729 970913 Date Date Lake-Sampling Protocols for Long-Term Monitoring

May 1996

INTRODUCTION

These protocols are part of the US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Region Lake Chemistry Sampling Program. The purpose of this program is to gain information on current condition and trends of lakes that have been preselected as "indicator lakes" for their high sensitivity to acidic deposition. One of the main differences between "synoptic" lake sampling protocols and "long term" lake sampling protocols is the enhanced levels of QA/QC that are required to provide data that can be used to develop a long term record of lake chemistry. Three examples of this are the use of gloves required when handling field samples, training of field samplers by water chemistry scientists, and filtering the samples within 24 hours of collection. Filtering gets rid of large particles in the samples that elements like sulfate could attach to, keeping the samples more "stable" in the time between collection and analysis.

PREPARATION

Planning for lake sampling will need to be done before the beginning of each field season and before each trip to the field. In the late spring (April or May) contact Louise O'Deen at the Rocky Mountain Station Lab to order bottle and supplies that you will need for the upcoming field season. Specify to the lab how many lakes in each wilderness will be sampled; how many 250 ml and 60 ml bottles will be needed (# of lakes X 3 samples per field season + enough bottles for field blanks and duplicates); indicate that samples will be filtered; and that filter syringes, acrodiscs, 2 sizes of bottles, and sample coolers with ice packs need to be sent. Send a cc: via DG to T.Blett:R02A of the above information so that the RO can incorporate all R2 lake sampling into one documentation letter to the RMS lab, in case confusion arises as to which samples from the various wilderness areas are processed in which manner.

Before each trip to the field, make sure to read over the protocols, check the supplies list for materials to bring, and bring enough bottles (filled with deionized water) for dups and blanks, if needed.

PROCEDURE

1. Frequency of Sampling

Each lake should be sampled three times during the summer field season to obtain "early- season," "mid-season," and "late-season" chemistry samples. This will probably translate into June, July, and August samples with the sampling times spaced as evenly apart as possible to determine the extent of seasonal variability in lake chemistry. The 3X sampling period is needed to develop a statistically valid baseline. In very heavy snow years only two sampling periods may be possible. This is OK, as long as the years before and after have 3 sampling periods.

2. Sampling Location

Samples should be taken near the flowing outlet of the lake, away from any aquatic vegetation and where the sampling activity will not disturb the sediments. If there is no flowing outflow from the lake, then select a rocky point or shoreline where there is good connection and circulation with the rest of the lake. In other words, do not sample in a pool or shallow area, separated from the main body of the lake by rocks. Sample at the same location each time. If the water is flowing, stand downstream from where you will sample. It is OK to sample when the lake is partially ice covered, as long as the "usual" lake sampling location is ice-free enough to obtain sample.

3. Collection Procedure Regular The 250-ml brown poly bottle should be emptied of deionized (DI) water just before sampling. Empty the bottle on land, away from the area you will be sampling. Bottles can be emptied (and recapped) just before taking them into the field, if it is cumbersome to hike in with full bottles. The person collecting the samples should wear long rubber gloves to avoid sample contamina- tion problems. (Use either disposable surgical gloves or dishwashing gloves that have been rinsed with distilled water between sampling trips and stored in plastic zip-lock bags until ready to sample.)

When collecting water samples, the bottles are submersed up to 0.5m depth (less depth if necessary to AVOID disturbing sediments), filled, capped, taken to the surface, and emptied, pouring the rinse water over the bottle caps. This filling-rinse procedure should be done three times. The rinse water should be poured away from the sampling location. The fourth rinse should be kept and the bottle capped until ready to filter. Care should be taken not to contaminate the sample by collection of surface film, contact with human skin, etc. Bottle caps should be taped to the bottles with electrical tape to minimize the change of sample leakage during transport.

Samples should be filtered as soon as possible after collection, to avoid the possibility of changes in chemistry. For Long-Term lake samples this MUST be within a 24 hour period after the water leaves the lake. In most cases, this will mean filtering in the field. If the samples are not filtered immediately on site, they need to be kept in the dark and cold until they are filtered. F ield filtration units (syringes and filter discs) will be loaned by the Rocky Mountain Station Lab. The syringes should be returned to the RMS Lab at the end of each field season for cleaning. Fill the syringe 1/4 full with rinse water from the 250 ml sample bottle, shake rinse water in syringe and discard rinse water. Pull syringe full with water from the 250 ml brown bottle, then attach acrodisc filter. Squirt 5ml into an empty 60 ml bottle. Put cap on the bottle, shake and discard rinse water. Repeat this rinse and discard procedure two more times then empty remaining sample in syringe into the 60 ml bottle. Take acrodisc off, and pull up another full syringe of lake water from the brown bottle. Reattach acrodisc and finish filtering into 60 ml bottle. The acrodisc may need to be changed if the water stops flowing smoothly. Change the acrodisc before each new sample is filtered.

The 60 ml sample bottle needs to be at least 2/3 full (50-60 ml of sample), then capped tightly. Also cap the 250-ml bottle containing the remaining unfiltered sample. Caps should be taped to the bottles with electrical tape to minimize the chance of leakage during transport.

Samples should be filtered in the field if possible, but may be filtered upon return to the District if done within 24 hours of collection. Date the time of filtering in field notebooks. PH, alkalinity, conductivity, and carbon analysis will be done on the unfiltered sample remaining in the 250-ml bottle. All other analyses will be done on the filtered samples.

Field Blanks For approximately every five lake samples, one field blank should be sent in for analysis. That is, for each round of sampling (beginning middle and end of field season), one bottle should be left full of DI water, carried into and out of the field with the other bottles, and sent to Fort Collins as a "field blank." (The number of field blanks has been increased to check the neutrality of the filter paper). Field blanks should be filtered and split into the 60-ml bottles, exactly as the regular samples are done. Field blanks are necessary to assure that chemical results are not coming from any sources outside the lake water (bottles, filter paper, handling procedure, etc) and are standard quality-assurance and quality-control procedures.

Duplicates One out of approximately every five lake samples should be collected in duplicate. That is, for each round of sampling (beginning, middle, and end of field season), one of the samples should be taken as two filled 250-ml bottles. Duplicates should be filtered and split into the 60 ml bottles exactly as the regular samples are done. Duplicates are necessary to to check the reproducibility of the lab results and are standard quality assurance and quality control procedures.

4. Data Recording

Each sample should be carefully labeled on high-quality label tape with Wilderness name, lake name, date, time, "filtered" or "unfiltered," and the sampler's initials. Labels should be placed on bottles before sampling is begun, because they don't stick well to wet or damp bottles. Site- specific protocols should be developed and documented by the field technicians during the first field season of the long-term sampling program. These may include determining where in the lake sampling will take place each time, setting up methods for keeping samples cool (ice- packs, portable coolers, ziplocks filled with snow, etc).

The following information should be recorded in a lake-sampling notebook (weatherproof is best):

One-time information should be recorded for each lake initially, including the name of the Wilderness, drainage, elevation, map quad name, legal description (township and range), bedrock geology, soils, types and general location of vegetation present, fish present, lake size (area), watershed size (acres), inlet present, outlet present, and a sketch map of the lake, showing the sampling location.

Every-time information should be recorded for each lake every time lake samples are taken. This information includes the date and time of sample, sampler name, weather, lake temperature (at the same depth at which the sample is taken), time of filtering, any unusual lake conditions, any problems or changes in sample collection, and note if the inlet and/or outlet are running.

The field notebooks stay at the District or Forests conducting sampling. At the end of every field season, field notes should be copied and sent to Tamara Blett at the RO.

In addition, at the initiation of the long term lake sampling program, 3-5 photographs should be taken of the lake basin, for use in identifying the amount of vegetation, bare soils and rock outcrop in the watershed. Care needs to be taken to identify the lake in the picture. This can be accomplished by taking a picture of the name (or location) of the lake printed on a piece of paper before the lake is photographed. Keep one copy of the photos on the District or Supervisors Office and send one copy to the R.O.

Sample Cooling and Shipping

Samples must be kept cool (but not frozen) and in the dark until filtered. After filtering, all bottles should be kept out of the sun and as cool as possible. They should be refrigerated if there will be any lag time between returning from the field and shipping the bottles to the lab. Samples will not have any form of preservative added. They should be mailed to the Fort Collins lab as soon as possible but within a maximum of 7 days from sampling. Bottles should be packed with the frozen ice packs in the insulated cooler provided by the Rocky Mountain Station Lab, and shipped by UPS "Next Day" service.

Sample Analysis at the Rocky Mountain Station Lab

Within 48 hours of receipt, samples will be analyzed for pH, alkalinity, and conductivity. Filtered samples are refridgerated at the lab until analysis is done. This will be within 3 weeks of receipt by the lab for ammonium, ortho-phosphate, sulfate, nitrate, chloride, bromide, fluoride, calcium, magnesium, sodium, silica (recommend at least one silica analysis per year- August/September sample), aluminum (recommend at least one aluminum analysis per year- same sample as silica; or at least one analysis every 3 to 5 years (specify in AQRV Monitoring Plan) if lake pH is known to be less than 6.5), and potassium. Samples will be analyzed using EPA-approved standard methods.

Data Reporting

A paper copy of the lab results will be sent from the Rocky Mountain Station to the Forest or District sponsoring the sampling and to the Regional Office in Lakewood after the completion of the field season unless a special request is made to the RMS lab. An electronic copy of the lab data will be sent to the Regional Office from the RMS Lab after the completion of field season sample analysis. A summary report of data collection, analysis, and interpretation of results may be done by the Forest or District and reported to the Forest Supervisor at the end of each field season.

CONTACTS

Rocky Mountain Experiment Station Lab Louise O'Deen 970-498-1293 Forest Service Regional Office Tamara Franklin Blett 303-275-5744

EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES

Sampling bottles (sent from RMS lab) Insulated mailing coolers and ice packs (sent from RMS lab but supplemental supplies may be necessary) Syringe filters and acrodisc filter paper (sent from RMS lab) Rubber gloves (surgical disposable, or dishwashing gloves can be used if rinsed between sample trips and kept in a zip-lock bag). Label tape (Scotch brand white-label tape works well) Waterproof black markers (Sharpees work well) Field notebook (weatherproof) Electrical tape Thermometer Camera and film (disposable cameras work fine) Blank 8-1/2 x 11" paper for first photo at each lake Refrigerator for storing samples, if not immediately mailed Radio and batteries Camping gear and packs First aid kit Insulated bags, lunch coolers or other mechanism for keeping sample bottles cool while hiking them out. Copy of sampling protocols

BE AWARE

* Safety First! Be aware of hazardous weather conditions, or other potentially dangerous situations. Your safety is always more important than getting the water sample.

* Filter samples in as "clean" an environment as practical to avoid wind blown debris contaminat- ing the sample. This may be inside a tent or shelter, behind rock outcrops or by covering the bottles with plastic cling-wrap and poking the syringe through the plastic.

* Pulling water through the acrodisc may become increasingly difficult if the water has anything in it that could clog the filter. Use more than one filter per sample if needed.

* Samples should not be given to UPS on Fridays for shipping as they may sit in the truck getting warm all weekend. Refrigerate samples over the weekend if necessary and ship on the following Monday

*If anything unusual happens in sample collection or transport, be sure to document this in the field notebook! If the sample becomes seriously compromised (eg: forgotten for a week under the seat of your truck, contaminated in some way, or some other horrendous breach of protocol) THROW IT OUT! APPENDIX E

VISIBILITY MONITORING PROTOCOL

Visibility monitoring is based on a 35 mm camera body equipped with a 135 mm lens, UV filter, and an automatic film winder. A battery powered programmable timer triggers the camera three times a day to photograph a selected view path. A databack imprints the day and time the exposure is taken. The equipment is able to operate unattended for at least ten days and can operate under extreme air temperatures (-10o F to 130o F).

A visibility monitoring site should be selected so that as much of the site path as possible looks through the wilderness. The ideal camera location should also be reasonably accessible but secure year round. The camera should photograph one target with as many of the following characteristics as possible (Fox et al, 1987.):

1. The target should be large, i.e., subtend at least 0.1 degrees of solid angle (approximately 20% of the size of the full moon).

2. It should be easily identifiable on topographic maps of the area.

3. It should be dark, preferably covered with coniferous elevation.

4. The target's distance from the monitoring site should be 40-60% of the standard visual range for the area.

5. The site and the target should be approximately the same elevation. The observer-target elevation angle should be within plus or minus 1o.

6. The observer-target sight path should not be affected by local sources of visual air pollution.

7. The target should be selected to be as free of snow as possible during the winter.

8. Sun angle should be such that the sun does not shine directly into the lens.

The frequency of photographs taken daily can vary depending upon the monitoring objectives. The frequency of site visits is typically a function of the frequency of photographs taken each day. If there are three a day, the camera system must be maintained every 10 days. If one photograph is taken daily, the camera system must be maintained every 30 days. This includes changing the film, inspecting and cleaning the cameral lens and box window, checking the databack and batteries, pho- tographing the film documentation board, checking the camera and timer settings, aligning the camera to the target, and completing the assessment sheet and mailing the sheet and the film to Air Re- source Specialists (ARS). ARS retains originals and duplicates of all SVR data files and all original photographic slides. Duplicate slides of the "best", "average", and "worst" visibility conditions (as estimated from seasonal data) are sent to the Regional Office.

E-1 Personnel involved in this monitoring will be a critical link in the consistency and quality of the resulting data. Sites must be installed and maintained properly at the scheduled intervals, problems re- solved, and film mailed to ARS in a timely manner. Valuable time, money, and data will be lost if individuals are not committed to these goals. Numerous data losses at monitoring sites have occurred due to instrument malfunctions, operator inconsistencies, and operator priorities (Air Re- source Specialists, 1988.).

E-2 Visibility Data Summary Eagle's Nest Wilderness Camera Target: West Peak

Mean Cleanest 20% Mean of All Data Mean Dirtiest 20% Season Year dv b ext SVR dv b ext SVR dv b ext SVR Summer 1993 * * 345 * * 223 * * 79 Fall 1993 * * 346 * * 226 * * 112 Winter 1995 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Spring 1995 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Summer 1995 0 10 340 5.8 18 201 11.5 31 119 Fall 1995 0 9 384 5.6 17 206 11.6 32 117 Winter 1996 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Spring 1996 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Summer 1996 1.4 11 300 7.1 20 178 12.9 36 103 Fall 1996 0.5 10 325 9.9 27 137 18.4 63 61

Visibility Metric* = not calculated prior to 1994 ** =Insufficient Data Visibility Data Summary Maroon Bells/Snowmass Wilderness Camera Target: Mt. Sopris

Mean Cleanest 20% Mean of All Data Mean Dirtiest 20% Season Year dv b ext SVR dv b ext SVR dv b ext SVR Winter 1992 * * ** * * ** * * ** Spring 1992 * * 207 * * 160 * * 87 Summer 1992 * * 225 * * 135 * * 79 Fall 1992 * * 305 * * 194 * * 119 Winter 1993 * * ** * * ** * * ** Spring 1993 * * 194 * * 144 * * 103 Summer 1993 * * 255 * * 193 * * 116 Fall 1993 * * 275 * * 176 * * 92 Fall 1994 0.0 10 348 5.0 17 218 10.9 30 126 Winter 1995 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Spring 1995 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Summer 1995 0.7 11 318 6.4 19 190 11.7 32 116 Fall 1995 0.3 10 330 6.8 20 184 11.8 33 114 Winter 1996 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Spring 1996 ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** Summer 1996 2.6 13 269 9.2 25 147 15.4 46 81 Fall 1996 1.9 12 258 10.0 27 136 18.0 61 63

Visibility Metric* = not calculated prior to 1994 ** =Insufficient Data APPENDIX F

Active Sites in the NADP Network (as of December, 1988)

NADP Code Site Name Start Date End Date Elev (m)

CO00 Alamosa 4/80 2208 CO01 Las Animas Fish Hatchery 10/83 1213 CO02 Niwot Saddle 6/84 3520 CO08 Four Mile Park 12/87 2502 CO15 Sand Spring 3/79 1998 CO19 Rocky Mtn Nat. Park-Beaver Mdw 5/80 2490 CO21 Manitou 10/78 2362 CO22 Pawnee 5/79 1641 CO91 Wolf Creek Pass 5/92 3292 CO92 Sunlight Peak 1/88 3206 CO93 Dry Lake 10/86 2527 CO94 Sugarloaf 11/86 2524 CO95 Engineer Mtn Guard Station 7/86 1/90 2758 CO96 Molas Pass 7/86 3286 CO97 Buffalo Pass 2/84 3234 CO98 Rocky Mtn Nat. Park-Loch Vale 8/83 3159 CO99 Mesa Verde Nat. Park 4/81 2172

F-1 Site information is available through NADP.

F-2