DOCSLIB.ORG

California Water Trust Network

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

RESTORING CARSON MEADOWS: ASSESSMENT AND PRIORITIZATION A report supported by the National Fish and Wildlife February 2018 Foundation Results of a broadly-collaborative effort to prioritize meadows in the Carson River Watershed for restoration. Restoring Carson Meadows Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization Julie Fair, Luke Hunt, Meg Hanley and Jacob Dyste 2018. Restoring Carson Meadows: Assessment and Prioritization. A report by American Rivers submitted to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Page 1 Restoring Carson Meadows CONTENTS CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................... 2 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 3 THE CARSON WATERSHED .................................................................................................. 4 METHODS ............................................................................................................................ 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OF CONDITION DATA ............................................................ 7 PRIORITIES ........................................................................................................................... 9 PRIORITIZATION FOR LAHONTAN CUTTHROAT TROUT ................................................. 14 INFLUENCE OF BEAVER ..................................................................................................... 14 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15 CARSON RIVER MEADOWS ASSESSMENT DATA .............................................................. 17 Faith Valley ............................................................................................................................................ 17 Forestdale Meadow.............................................................................................................................. 18 Wet Meadows Reservoir Meadow .................................................................................................... 19 Highway 88 West Meadow ............................................................................................................... 20 Grover Hot Springs Meadow ............................................................................................................. 21 Falls Meadow ......................................................................................................................................... 22 Pleasant Valley ...................................................................................................................................... 23 Lower Fish Valley .................................................................................................................................. 24 Lower Red Lake Creek Meadow........................................................................................................ 25 Dumonts Meadow .................................................................................................................................. 26 Lower East Fork Carson Meadow ...................................................................................................... 27 Horsethief Canyon Meadow ............................................................................................................... 28 Upper Fish Valley .................................................................................................................................. 29 Coyote Valley ........................................................................................................................................ 30 Long Valley ............................................................................................................................................ 31 English Meadow ..................................................................................................................................... 32 Poison Flat East ...................................................................................................................................... 33 Poison Flat West .................................................................................................................................... 34 Middle Willow Creek Meadow .......................................................................................................... 35 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 36 APPENDIX 1: ALL MEADOW SCORES ............................................................................... 37 Page 2 Restoring Carson Meadows INTRODUCTION Meadows of the Carson River basin are an extremely valuable component of the landscape. Meadows provide diverse habitat, including habitat critical to endangered species. They reduce peak flows during storms and soak up spring runoff, recharging groundwater supplies. Meadows filter sediment, provide forage, and are important cultural and recreational sites. However, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) estimates that half of all meadows in the Sierra Nevada are degraded and no longer provide these natural benefits (NFWF 2010). Fortunately, there are methods to restore the condition of unhealthy meadows, and investment in meadow restoration is expanding rapidly. Investorsincluding NFWF and other foundations, state and federal agencies, corporations, ranchers and land managersseek to provide the largest return on their restoration investment. Therefore, an important question is which meadows, if restored, will provide the greatest value? To answer this question, American Rivers partnered with the US Forest Service (USFS) and NFWF to develop a scorecard to rapidly evaluate meadow condition and prioritize meadows for restoration (American Rivers 2012). The method has been applied in the Yuba, Mokelumne, Kern, Tuolumne, Truckee, American and Pine Creek watersheds, and assessment is underway in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks and Sequoia National Forest. UC Davis has developed a database to store this “Meadow Scorecard” data (http://meadows.ucdavis.edu/assessments/map). This assessment method has been used to identify dozens of high priority meadows and thereby focused our efforts and accelerated restoration. Members of the Carson Between 2014 and 2017, American Rivers was funded by NFWF to meadows work group use the scorecard in the Carson River basin to guide investment and have identified 6 top- accelerate the pace of restoration. We assessed every accessible priority meadows and meadow in the watershed that is larger than 15 acres, 28 meadows raised $226,000 toward in all. We identified six priority meadows and established a Carson restoration of the first two meadows work group to pursue restoration of these six sites as an sites. initial objective. Meadow restoration is currently the unifying force of the Carson meadows work group, but our vision is that the group’s focus will expand beyond these six meadows to improve the health of the watershed and aid in the recovery of the special status species of the Carson Watershed, including Lahontan Cutthroat Trout (LCT), Paiute Cutthroat Trout (PCT), Yosemite Toad, Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog (SNLYF) and Willow Flycatcher (WFC). Group members include land managers (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and California Department of Fish and Wildlife), other state and federal agencies (US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Resources Conservation Service, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board), non-profit organizations (American Rivers, Alpine Watershed Group, Friends of Hope Valley, Institute for Bird Populations, Trout Unlimited, and The Nature Conservancy), and local agencies (the Carson Water Subconservancy District and Alpine County Board of Supervisors). The presence of the work group in the watershed has already helped to accelerate the pace of restoration. Based on our preliminary prioritization data, American Rivers and our partners have raised $226,000 for restoration planning for two high-priority sites. The purpose of this Walker Basin Meadows Condition Report is twofold. First, it provides condition data and explains why the Carson meadows work group chose the first set of meadows as the top Page 3 Restoring Carson Meadows priority for restoration. Second, it provides information to inform the work group for planning subsequent restoration efforts once the first group of meadows is restored. THE CARSON WATERSHED The Carson River watershed encompasses nearly 4,000 square miles of California and Nevada, traversing five counties. The Carson River flows down the east side of the Sierra Nevada in two forks (east and west) from the high-elevation Carson Iceberg and Mokelumne Wilderness areas of the central Sierra Nevada, through Lahontan Reservoir, and into the Carson Sink wetlands in the Great Basin of Nevada. The East Fork Carson River flows from the north slopes of Sonora Peak northeast to Markleeville then on toward Highway 395. The West Fork Carson River flows from the Sierras near Carson Pass down through Hope Valley and northeast into Nevada, joining with the East Fork near Genoa, Nevada. The Carson River flows north to Carson City and then northeast to Dayton, though Lahontan Reservoir, andeventually to the Carson Sink, East of Fallon. The watershed supports approximately
Recommended publications
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences

    United States Department of Giant Sequoia Agriculture Forest Service National Monument Giant Sequoia National Monument Draft Environmental Impact Statement August 2010 Volume 1 The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Chapter 4 - Environmental Consequences Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 1 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Volume 1 Giant Sequoia National Monument, Draft Environmental Impact Statement 2 Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 Environmental Consequences Chapter 4 includes the environmental effects analysis. It is organized by resource area, in the same manner as Chapter 3. Effects are displayed for separate resource areas in terms of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the six alternatives considered in detail. Effects can be neutral, beneficial, or adverse. This chapter also discusses the unavoidable adverse effects, the relationship between short-term uses and long-term productivity, and any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. Environmental consequences form the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives.
  • Newlands Project

    Newlands Project

    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, February 2016 Mid-Pacific Region, Newlands Project History The Newlands Project was one of the first Reclamation projects. It provides irrigation water from the Truckee and Carson Rivers for about 57,000 acres of cropland in the Lahontan Valley near Fallon and bench lands near Fernley in western Nevada. In addition, water from about 6,000 acres of project land has been transferred to the Lahontan Valley Wetlands near Fallon. Lake Tahoe Dam, a small dam at the outlet of Lake Tahoe, the source of the Truckee Lake Tahoe Dam and Reservoir River, controls releases into the river. Downstream, the Derby Diversion Dam diverts the water into the Truckee Canal and Lahontan Dam, Reservoir, carries it to the Carson River. Other features and Power Plant include Lahontan Dam and Reservoir, Carson River Diversion Dam, and Old Lahontan Dam and Reservoir on the Carson Lahontan Power Plant. The Truckee-Carson River store the natural flow of the Carson project (renamed the Newlands Project) was River along with water diverted from the authorized by the Secretary of the Interior Truckee River. The dam, completed in 1915, on March 14, 1903. Principal features is a zoned earthfill structure. The reservoir include: has a storage capacity of 289,700 acre-feet. Old Lahontan Power Plant, immediately below Lahontan Dam, has a capacity of Lake Tahoe Dam 42,000 kilowatts. The plant was completed in 1911. Lake Tahoe Dam controls the top six feet of Lake Tahoe. With the surface area of the lake, this creates a reservoir of 744,600 acre- Truckee Canal feet capacity and regulates the lake outflow into the Truckee River.
  • Highway Conditions Introduction

    Highway Conditions Introduction

    Chapter 4 Highway Conditions Introduction The Ebbetts Pass National Scenic Byway (NBS) began as a trail that American Indians most likely used for trade and a hunting access route, and was later utilized by fur trappers. By the early to mid 1800’s pioneers and miners crossed over the pass. With the discovery of silver and the demand for more supplies to be delivered to the region, so came improvements to the road. Today, the highway itself is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). The road twists you further into the mountains narrowing with no centerline near Lake Alpine as it separates both the Carson-Iceberg and Mokelumne Wildernesses, luring the traveler farther away from society. The journey takes one both physically and psychologically closer to wildness. Beyond the crest of Ebbetts Pass, the descent winds through a rugged volcanic landscape overlooking the canyons below. This asphalt ribbon transitions back to a distinct, 2-lane highway with a centerline when you reach the floor of Silver Creek, just east of Silver Creek Campground. This portion of the byway is steep, narrow, and windy, and is not suitable for semi trucks, buses, and most Recreational Vehicles (RV’s). It is best left for smaller vehicle travel. Average Daily Traffic CalTrans collects data annually that reflects the number of vehicles that travel along Highway 4 in a given month. This data is compiled into average annual daily traffic counts (AADT). AADT numbers are calculated using electronic highway counters, determining the yearly figure and dividing by 365 days/year.
  • Draft Environmental Assessment for Fallon and Stillwater Hunt Plans

    Draft Environmental Assessment for Fallon and Stillwater Hunt Plans

    Draft Environmental Assessment for Waterfowl, Other Migratory Birds, Upland Game, and Big Game Hunting at Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge and Fallon National Wildlife Refuge Date: March 2020 This Environmental Assessment (EA) is being prepared to evaluate the effects associated with this proposed action and complies with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR 1500-1509) and Department of the Interior (43 CFR 46; 516 DM 8) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (550 FW 3) regulations and policies. NEPA requires examination of the effects of proposed actions on the natural and human environment. Proposed Action: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is proposing to open hunting opportunities for antelope (also called pronghorn) on Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge), and to open Fallon National Wildlife Refuge (NWR or Refuge) to hunting waterfowl, other migratory birds, upland game, big game, and other species. In 2003, the Service signed a Record of Decision for the final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (CCP-EIS) for the Stillwater NWR Complex. This draft EA is tiered from the 2002 CCP-EIS and focuses specifically on adding opportunities for antelope hunting at Stillwater NWR and opening the Fallon NWR to hunting as described in the Hunt Plan. This proposed action is often iterative and evolves over time during the process as the agency refines its proposal and learns more from the public, tribes, and other agencies. Therefore, the final proposed action may be different from the original. The final decision on the proposed action will be made at the conclusion of the public comment period for the EA and the Draft 2020-2021 Refuge-Specific Hunting and Sport Hunting Regulations.
  • Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest

    Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest

    United States Department of Agriculture Giant Sequoia Forest Service Sequoia National Monument National Forest August 2012 Record of Decision The U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. Giant Sequoia National Monument Management Plan 2012 Final Environmental Impact Statement Record of Decision Sequoia National Forest Lead Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Responsible Official: Randy Moore Regional Forester Pacific Southwest Region Recommending Official: Kevin B. Elliott Forest Supervisor Sequoia National Forest California Counties Include: Fresno, Tulare, Kern This document presents the decision regarding the the basis for the Giant Sequoia National Monument selection of a management plan for the Giant Sequoia Management Plan (Monument Plan), which will be National Monument (Monument) that will amend the followed for the next 10 to 15 years. The long-term 1988 Sequoia National Forest Land and Resource environmental consequences contained in the Final Management Plan (Forest Plan) for the portion of the Environmental Impact Statement are considered in national forest that is in the Monument.
  • Planning Commission County of Alpine, State of California

    Planning Commission County of Alpine, State of California

    PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF ALPINE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA CORRECTED AGENDA Thursday, January 28, 2021 5:00 P.M. Nick Hartzell, Chair Meeting Location: Jim Holdridge, Vice-Chair VIRTUAL MEETING ONLY Tom Sweeney Bob Broyer VIRTUAL MEETING NOTICE The Planning Commission meeting will be conducted virtually and not available for in person public participation (pursuant to State Executive Order N-29-20). The meeting will be an internet based video and phone conference. Public participation is available at the following: Website link: https://zoom.us/j/97965207316 Phone number: 669-900-9128 Zoom meeting ID: 979 6520 7316 IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING COVID-19 AND PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING To participate in this Alpine County Planning Commission meeting, the public are invited to observe and address the Commission telephonically or electronically. Instructions for public participation are below: Public Participation Instructions: The meeting will be conducted via teleconference using the Microsoft Zoom program, and Commissioners will attend electronically or telephonically. The meeting will have no physical location to physically attend. The public may observe the Zoom meeting via computer by clicking on the following link: https://zoom.us/j/97965207316 or the public may listen via phone by dialing 1-669-900-9128 and then when prompted, entering the Meeting ID Access Code 979 6520 7316 You will be asked for a “Participant ID”. You do not need a Participant ID to join the meeting, press the pound key (#) again and you will be automatically connected. 1. If a member of the public wishes to comment on a particular agenda item, the public is strongly encouraged to submit their comments in writing via email to the Community Development Department at [email protected] by 2:00 p.m.
  • Mountain Whitefish Chances for Survival: Better 4 Prosopium Williamsoni

    Mountain Whitefish Chances for Survival: Better 4 Prosopium Williamsoni

    Mountain Whitefish chances for survival: better 4 Prosopium williamsoni ountain whitefish are silvery in color and coarse-scaled with a large and the mackenzie and hudson bay drainages in the arctic. to sustain whatever harvest exists today. mountain whitefish in California and Nevada, they are present in the truckee, should be managed as a native salmonid that is still persisting 1 2 3 4 5 WHITEFISH adipose fin, a small mouth on the underside of the head, a short Carson, and Walker river drainages on the east side of in some numbers. they also are a good indicator of the dorsal fin, and a slender, cylindrical body. they are found the sierra Nevada, but are absent from susan river and “health” of the Carson, Walker, and truckee rivers, as well as eagle lake. lake tahoe and other lakes where they still exist. Whitefish m Mountain Whitefish Distribution throughout western North america. While mountain whitefish are regarded aBundanCe: mountain whitefish are still common in populations in sierra Nevada rivers and tributaries have California, but they are now divided into isolated popula- been fragmented by dams and reservoirs, and are generally as a single species throughout their wide range, a thorough genetic analysis tions. they were once harvested in large numbers by Native scarce in reservoirs. a severe decline in the abundance of americans and commercially harvested in lake tahoe. mountain whitefish in sagehen and prosser Creeks followed would probably reveal distinct population segments. the lahontan population there are still mountain whitefish in lake tahoe, but they the construction of dams on each creek.
  • Inside This Issue

    Inside This Issue

    February 1998 Inside This Issue... Air Quality Improvement Initiative Board Briefs Board Member Profile Getting Acquainted: American Land Conservancy Green Money (excerpts reprinted with permission from the Trust for Public Land) If It's Green, Is It Clean? Keeping Open Space Open News Notes SNA Goes Global SNA Kicks Off Regional Meetings Thanks to our Recent Donors President's Letter Air Quality Improvement Initiative The Planning & Conservation League (PCL), a statewide coalition of citizens and conservation groups and a member of the Alliance, is sponsoring a statewide ballot initiative for the November 1998 ballot which would provide tax credits for voluntary investments in vehicles and equipment that will reduce air pollution in California. In terms of Sierra impacts, the initiative is directed toward reducing NOx (nitrogen oxide) emissions and particulate matter, two of the factors at the heart of the destructive effects of air pollution on both our health and the health of our forests and plant communities. For example, scientists have discovered that air pollution from the burning of fossil fuels (including motor vehicle and diesel engines) is the major casue of acid rain, which impairs tree growth, severely impacts high mountain lakes, and can be carried by rainwater to further affect surface run-off and soils. PCL encourages conservation organizations to support this measure. For more information, call Steve Jacoby at PCL: 916-444-8726, ext. 6. Endorsers: American Lung Association, Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Nevada Alliance, California Native Plant Society, Greenbelt Alliance, League to Save Lake Tahoe, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, and more. Board Briefs Linda Blum was a panelist at the Great Lakes Forest Alliance conference on Timber & Tourism.
  • Sequoia National Forest

    Sequoia National Forest

    FOREST, MONUMENT, OR PARK? You may see signs for Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks… and wonder what is the difference between these places? All are on federal land. Each exists to benefit society. Yet each has a different history and purpose. Together they provide a wide spectrum of uses. National Forests, managed under a "multiple use" concept, provide services and commodities that may include lumber, livestock grazing, minerals, and recreation with and without vehicles. Forest employees work for the U.S. Forest Service, an agency in the Department of Agriculture. The U.S. Forest Service was created in 1905. National Monuments can be managed by any of three different agencies: the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, or the Bureau of Land Management. They are created by presidential proclamation and all seek to protect specific natural or cultural features. Giant Sequoia National Monument is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and is part of Sequoia National Forest. It was created by former President Bill Clinton in April of 2000. National Parks strive to keep landscapes unimpaired for future generations. They protect natural and historic features while offering light-on-the-land recreation. Park employees work for the National Park Service, part of the Department of the Interior. The National Park Service was created in 1916. Forests, Monuments, and Parks may have different rules in order to meet their goals. Read "Where can I..." below to check out what activities are permitted where within the Sequoia National Forest, Giant Sequoia National Monument, and Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Parks.
  • Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada

    Field Assessment of Whitebark Pine in the Sierra Nevada

    FIELD ASSESSMENT OF WHITEBARK PINE IN THE SIERRA NEVADA Sara Taylor, Daniel Hastings, and Julie Evens Purpose of field work: 1. Verify distribution of whitebark pine in its southern extent (pure and mixed stands) 2. Assess the health and status of whitebark pine 3. Ground truth polygons designated by CALVEG as whitebark pine Regional Dominant 4. Conduct rapid assessment or reconnaissance surveys California National Forest Overview Areas surveyed: July 2013 Sequoia National Forest Areas surveyed: August 2013 Eldorado National Forest Areas surveyed: September 2013 Stanislaus National Forest Field Protocol and Forms: • Modified CNPS/CDFW Vegetation Rapid Assessment protocol Additions to CNPS/CDFW Rapid Assessment protocol: CNDDB • Individuals/stand • Phenology • Overall viability (health/status) Marc Meyer • Level of beetle attack • % absolute dead cover • % of whitebark cones CNPS • Impacts and % mortality from rust and beetle Field Protocol and Forms: • CNPS/CDFW Field Reconnaissance (recon) protocol is a simplified Rapid Assessment (RA) protocol 3 reasons to conduct a recon: 1. WBP stand is largely diseased/infested 2. CALVEG polygon was incorrect 3. WBP stand was close to other RA Results: Sequoia National Forest • Whitebark pine was not found during survey in Golden Trout Wilderness • Calveg polygons assessed (36 total) were mostly foxtail pine (Pinus balfouriana) • Highest survey conducted was at 11,129 ft at the SEKI and NF border Results: Eldorado National Forest (N to S) Desolation Wilderness: • 3 rapid assessments and 8 recons were conducted • 9,061 to 9,225 ft in elevation • Lower elevation stands were more impacted from MPB Mokelumne Wilderness: • 5 rapid assessments and 10 recons were conducted • 8,673 to 9,566 ft.
  • 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed

    5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction with the Watershed

    Upper Carson River Watershed Stream Corridor Assessment 5. Human Interaction With the Watershed 5.1 Historic Period Human Interaction With the Watershed The purpose of this section is to summarize human activities that have had some effect on the Carson River watershed in Alpine County, California. Regional prehistory and ethnography are summarized by Nevers (1976), Elston (1982), d’Azevedo (1986), and Lindstrom et al. (2000). Details of regional history can be found in Maule (1938), Jackson (1964), Dangberg (1972), Clark (1977), Murphy (1982), Marvin (1997), and other sources. A book published by the Centennial Book Committee (1987) contains an excellent selection of historic photographs. Particularly useful is a study on the historical geography of Alpine County by Howatt (1968). 5.1.1 Prehistoric Land Use Human habitation of the Upper Carson River Watershed extends thousands of years back into antiquity. Archaeological evidence suggests use of the area over at least the last 8,000 to 9,000 years. For most of that time, the land was home to small bands of Native Americans. Their number varied over time, depending on regional environmental conditions. For at least the last 2,000 years, the Washoe occupied the Upper Carson River Watershed. Ethnographic data provides clues as to past land use and land management practices (see extended discussions in Downs 1966; Blackburn and Anderson 1993; Lindstrom et al. 2000; Rucks 2002). A broad range of aboriginal harvesting and hunting practices, fishing, and camp tending would have affected the landscape and ecology of the study area. Shrubs such as service berry and willow were pruned to enhance growth.
  • Data Set Listing (May 1997)

    Data Set Listing (May 1997)

    USDA Forest Service Air Resource Monitoring System Existing Data Set Listing (May 1997) Air Resource Monitoring System (ARMS) Data Set Listing May 1997 Contact Steve Boutcher USDA Forest Service National Air Program Information Manager Portland, OR (503) 808-2960 2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 DATA SET DESCRIPTIONS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------10 National & Multi-Regional Data Sets EPA’S EASTERN LAKES SURVEY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------11 EPA’S NATIONAL STREAM SURVEY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------12 EPA WESTERN LAKES SURVEY------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) LICHEN MONITORING-------------------------------------------------14 FOREST HEALTH MONITORING (FHM) OZONE BIOINDICATOR PLANTS ----------------------------------15 IMPROVE AEROSOL MONITORING--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16 IMPROVE NEPHELOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------17 IMPROVE TRANSMISSOMETER ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------18 NATIONAL ATMOSPHERIC DEPOSITION PROGRAM/ NATIONAL TRENDS NETWORK----------------19 NATIONAL