SEPA
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
EPA 910/9-85-125
MARCH 1985
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT REGION 10
401 M STREET. S.W. 1200 SIXTH AVENUE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 70460 SEATTLE. WA 98101
National Surface Water Survey
Western Wilderness Area Lakes
ENVIRONMENTAL DRAFT
ASSESSMENT
A"
D.STRlBUTION OF LAKES TO BE SAMPLED
-------
EPA 910/9-85-125
NATIONAL SURFACE WATER SURVEY
WESTERN WILDERNESS AREA LAKES
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
DRAFT
March 1, 1985
RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS:
Bernard D. Goldstein
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
SEND COMMENTS TO:
Wayne D. Elson
EA Project Officer, M/S 443
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 442-1828
(FTS) 399-1828
Ernesta B. Barnes
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, WA 98101
SEND COPY TO:
Robert M. Reed
Environmental Sciences Division
Bldg. 1505
Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Oak Ridge, TN 37831
Comments due by March 22, 1985
IMiHiil
RX00000S010
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
PURPOSE AND NEED
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to sample 498
lakes in federally designated wilderness areas and national parks during the
western part of the National Surface Water Survey (NSWS). The NSWS has been
undertaken to provide high quality data for evaluating the nature and extent of
acid deposition throughout the United States. Sampling protocols established for
the national survey call for the use of helicopters to gain access to lakes for
sampling. Helicopters have already been used in the eastern and midwestern parts
of the survey. The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the National Park Service (NPS)
will have to decide which sampling plan for wilderness areas, if any, can be
approved under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the
environmental consequences of alternative means of gaining access to wilderness
areas to meet the objectives of the NSWS. Based on this evaluation, EPA has
reviewed the possible sampling alternatives and reached a conclusion on the
preferred alternative. This assessment is being provided to the FS and the NPS
for their use in evaluating the alternatives, including EPA's preferred one.
As a result of its evaluation, EPA believes that wilderness area lakes should
be included in the survey and that the preferred means of access is using
helicopters. This conclusion is based on the following:
(1) environmental impacts of using helicopters would be transitory and
would not be significant,
(2) the data collected for the survey must be of the highest quality to
adequately support major policy decisions relative to a national
emissions control strategy,
(3) the survey data would provide important background information
that could be used to evaluate future trends of acidic deposition
and lake acidification in wilderness areas not yet affected.
It is critical that a national survey of surface waters adequately represent
the geographic distribution of vulnerable surface waters within each region
because (1) the potential consequences of emission control policy decisions are
national in scope and (2) long-range transport of pollutants can result in impacts
remote from the responsible sources. As a result of the distribution of lakes in
the West, sampling within the boundaries of wilderness areas is necessary to
preserve the geographic representativeness of the survey.
From the standpoint of logistics, the use of helicopters is essential to meet
EPA's data quality assurance objectives because (1) a large number of lakes (498)
must be sampled, (2) the sampling window is very narrow (3 to 6 weeks),
(3) holding times for critical chemical parameters are short (12 h maximum in
some cases), and (4) safety of survey crews is of concern during a period when
weather conditions can change rapidly. Sampling protocols, including the use of
iil
-------
helicopters, have been clearly defined to minimize outside sources of variability
and to ensure that the data collected are of the highest quality.
ALTERNATIVES
Four alternatives are evaluated in the EA: (I) access to all wilderness lakes
to be sampled would be by helicopter, (2) access to all wilderness area lakes to be
sampled would be by horseback, (3) access to the least accessible lakes would be
by helicopter and to other lakes would be by horseback, and (A) no wilderness area
lakes would be sampled in the study (i.e., the no action alternative).
Alternative 1 would involve using sampling protocols developed for the NSWS
and already used in completing the survey in the upper midwest, the northeast,
and the southeast. Helicopters would fly to each lake, land on the lake to obtain a
water sample (a process taking approximately 20 min), and then proceed to the
next lake or return to the field base laboratory. All samples would be analyzed
and processed for shipment to an analytical laboratory for further analysis.
Alternative 2 would involve the use of horses to gain access to all lakes to be
sampled. Sampling crews of four people (two samplers, a wrangler/guide, and at
least one rider to transport the samples) and eight horses (four riding horses and
four pack animals) would be used. Samples would be collected using a rubber
boat. All chemical variables measured for Alternative 1 would also be measured
for this alternative, but NSWS sampling protocols would be modified in that
samples would be filtered and processed for transport at the site of collection.
Samples would be transported by horseback to the nearest landing spot outside the
wilderness area for further transport to the field base laboratory. Not all lakes
selected for the proposed survey would be accessible under this alternative.
Alternative 3 would involve the use of horses to gain access to all lakes
within wilderness areas from which samples could be transported to a helicopter
landing site within seven hours. Samples would be taken from a rubber boat as in
Alternative 2, but would then be transported immediately to a landing site so that
they would arrive at the field base laboratory in time to be processed within a
12 h limit (i.e., samples would have to be transported to a helicopter landing site
within 7 h; a transport time in the helicopter of 1 h is assumed; processing time in
the field base laboratory would take A h). All 21 chemical variables would be
measured as in Alternative 1. Helicopters would be used for gaining access to
those lakes where distance or difficulties of access would prevent samples from
being transported to a helicopter landing site within the required 7 h.
Alternative A is the no action alternative. No lakes would be sampled within
wilderness area boundaries, and the western lake survey would not be conducted.
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Of the 888 lakes randomly selected for sampling in the West, 425 are located
in federally designated wilderness areas and 73 are located within national park
areas that are not presently designated as wilderness. These wilderness areas are
located in nine western states.
iv
-------
Wilderness areas have been established under the Wilderness Act of 1964
(Pub. L. 88-577) and related legislation as part of a National Wilderness
Preservation System. These areas are to be devoted "to public purposes of
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and historical use."
Wilderness values related to preservation of wilderness character and its solitude
are of great importance. Wilderness uses include backpacking, fishing, hunting,
and other activities.
Biological resources include a wide variety of plant and animal life. Wildlife
include large mammals such as the black bear, cougar, elk, deer, moose,
mountain goat, and mountain sheep, and smaller mammals such as the bobcat,
mink, and raccoon. Sport fish such as the rainbow, golden, brook, and cutthroat
trout, and Chinook salmon may be present in certain areas.
Endangered species that may be present in or near these areas include the
woodland caribou, gray wolf, bald eagle, whooping crane, American peregrine
falcon, and Kendall Warm Springs dace. Threatened species include the arctic
peregrine falcon, grizzly bear, Paiute cutthroat trout, Greenback cutthroat trout,
and Little Kern golden trout.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Environmental consequences of the four alternatives are considered in terms
of (1) potential environmental impacts on the existing wilderness environment and
(2) potential effects on the objectives of the NSWS, which have been developed to
obtain data for evaluating the impacts of present and future acidic deposition.
Environmental Impacts
Alternative 1 (Helicopter access only)
Wilderness Values. Of the major wilderness values described in Sect. 3.1.1,
only the experiential and mental and moral restoration would likely be affected.
Potential scientific values would remain unchanged because the proposed action
would in all probability leave no physical changes to the wilderness (landing only
on water) and would have only a transitory impact on wildlife due to the
helicopters' noise and appearance (Sect. 4.1.3). In terms of scientific values, the
proposed survey is in keeping with the spirit of the Wilderness Act in that it would
use the wilderness as a barometer, or yardstick, to further understanding of the
threats of acid deposition. The foremost value in wilderness management is
taking those actions that preserve wilderness character, that maintain the
integrity of the wilderness. To the extent that other alternatives cannot meet the
timing needs and quality guidelines of the lake survey, Alternative 1 would be in
keeping with the spirit and letter of the Wilderness Act.
Alternative 1 involves a one-time request for motorized access which is
unlikely to serve as a precedent for granting other requests. Few, if any, future
requests would meet the following unique research and administrative objectives
and the methodolgical constraints of the NSWS survey: the wide-spread
geographic scope of possible effects and sources, the lack of available data,
potentially great ecological harm, unique monitoring and quality control
procedures, and high policy and legislative priority.
v
-------
Wilderness use. All recreational uses of wildernesses will be affected by the
noise of the helicopters used in the proposed action. Helicopters are comparable
in sound level to heavy trucks and city buses. Helicopter sounds are different in
character, however, from other modes of transportation. Takeoff, landing, and
flyover- each has a different combination and intensity of sound. A typical
wilderness might have ambient noise levels in the range of 20 to 30 dB/^. The
loudest noise from the proposed helicopter use would be approximately 90 dB^, at
landing on the lake surface, 500 ft from an observer on shore. Data provided in
Table 4.1-1 and Appendix A, indicate that a typical wilderness visitor at a
lakeshore would first hear the sounds of a helicopter approaching from a level
flyover altitude of 2000 ft. Exact data are unavailable on the intensity of this
sound, but it would likely be in the vicinity of 40 dB^. As the helicopter landed,
the sound intensity to an observer located 500 ft from the deepest point of the
lake would increase to approximately 80-90 dB^. While on the water during the
sampling (15-20 min), helicopter sound intensities would range from 56-66 dB if a
reduced engine-idle speed could be maintained or 66-74 dB^ if full engine idle
speed was necessary. Takeoff sound intensities would decrease with ascent from
83 dB^ to the intensities of the level flyover (40 dB^ and less) as the helicopter
flew from the area.
The dominant impacts of the proposed helicopter sampling associated with
recreational activities would be the sight and sound of the helicopters either
landing and doing the sampling or flying overhead (or both). The impact on those
who make the effort to get off the formal trail system and "away" would
presumably be substantially greater than to those who follow the established
trails. The flightpaths of the helicopter overflights could be sensitively planned in
many areas to avoid most wilderness users (Sect. 4.1.6). Recreational users may
frequently be present at camp sites which are are highly clustered near lakes.
The helicopters would unavoidably encounter recreational users because lakes are
EPA's focus of interest. Impacts at campsites would be more disruptive than on
trails, and impacts in remote, internal locations could be the greatest, despite
their location. Some temporary noise intrusion due to gunshots, however, would
already be present since the survey would take place during hunting season.
The most serious impact to fishing as a recreational activity would be the
impact on the aesthetic dimension of the fishing experience. The proposed
helicopter use involves sampling away from the shoreline at the deepest point in
each lake and would have minimal impact on the fishing potential on a given day.
Hunting for some species (such as bighorn sheep or mountain goats) is
essentially wilderness dependent because these species are generally only found in
such areas. For other species, such as deer or elk, that are not particularly
wilderness dependent, hunters may seek out wilderness settings as being most
desirable for their activity. Popular big game species such as bighorn sheep and
mountain goats are creatures of quite predictable habits. If they are startled by
the sight and sounds of the proposed helicopter use, the fright response would be
temporary. Studies show that such animals can be readily tracked (by experienced
hunters) after such a disruption; presumably, the hunt could be resumed in a
timely way. The most disruptive situation would occur if hunters were unable to
schedule a planned trip to avoid the period during which helicopters might be
operating in the area. Notification about the possibility of helicopter noise
intrusion would be given to users to minimize the degree to which users are
vi
-------
surprised by the noise and to reduce annoyance impact. In addition, it is
anticipated that reduced visitation in the fall would result in fewer users being
affected by the helicopters than during more popular hiking and camping seasons.
Wildlife. The only likely adverse impact on wildlife associated with the use
of helicopters would be the effects of noise. Most noise effects, however, have to
do with long-term -exposure to relatively high levels and the consequent
permanent effects on health, physiology, or behavior. In the present case, the
only probable effect of one or, at most, several overflights by helicopters would
be a startle or fright response. Except in the relatively unlikely event of an
accident suffered by a frightened animal, such impacts would be minor and
transitory.
Endangered and threatened species. Potential impacts of helicopter use on
endangered and threatened species are the same as for other wildlife, but are of
greater concern because populations of these species may be particularly
susceptible to damage. Thus, noise from helicopters during nesting seasons of
bald eagles or staging of whooping cranes, for example, could disrupt these
critical reproductive activities and contribute to threats to the species' continued
existence. The timing and nature of the proposed activity under this alternative,
however, make significant impacts to endangered species very unlikely. Possible
exceptions are where lakes are near eagle or falcon sites. Ground access would be
preferable in these situations because juveniles may remain in the nest area
during the postfledging period. Close coordination with wildlife officials would
help minimize any problems.
Even though four endangered or threatened fish species [a dace and three
trout species (Sect. 3.3)] may be found in or near wilderness areas to be sampled
in the NSWS, no adverse effects would be expected except in the unlikely event of
a large accidental fuel spill into a small water body containing the species
(Sect. 4.1.4).
Water bodies. The major potential source of environmental impact to water
bodies would be a spill or leak of fuel from the helicopters into the lakes being
sampled. Leaks of hydraulic fluid and spills of other materials (e.g., pH standard
solutions, freeze-gel packs) could also occur. For all but the smallest water
bodies that could be encountered, no significant toxic effects would be expected,
but a temporary visible sheen might result from any hydrocarbon spill or leak.
Human safety. The major safety concern with using helicopters would be an
accident that resulted in death or serious injury to a member of the helicopter
crew. The high altitudes and mountainous terrain associated with the proposed
helicopter use involve dangerous flying conditions. Huge and difficult-to-see
downdrafts or tailwinds can be caused by sharp changes in the terrain and sudden
changes in weather (George Schaller, personal communications). Takeoffs and
landings become much more demanding than in level terrain, low-altitude flying.
In the unlikely event of an accident during the proposed NSWS survey, a chain of
other impacts involving search and rescue and salvage operations would begin and
could involve dangerous mountain rescues by helicopters and/or climbers; there is
also the possibility of a forest fire caused by a crash. Using an estimated total
flight exposure for Alternative 1 of less than 1000 h, the chance of an accident
occurring during the survey would be 0.1 accident per 1000 h. During the eastern
vii
-------
and midwestern portions of the survey no accidents occurred during the more than
1100 h of flight time that were logged.
An additional consideration in regard to human safety is the potential for a
helicopter to scare a horse and injure a rider, although a vigorous program of
notification can minimize this potential problem.
Alternative 2 (Horse access only)
Wilderness values. Wilderness values would be minimally affected by
conducting the survey under this alternative. The long-term wilderness character
might be negatively affected if survey data were not collected. Making national
air quality decisions without sufficiently representative or accurate data could
result in more severe, rapid, and extensive impacts of acidic deposition on given
individual wilderness areas, the wilderness system in general, and/or similar areas
throughout the country.
Wilderness use. This alternative would increase trail and campsite use during
a time of year when wilderness visitors might reasonably expect more solitude and
tranquility. The size of each pack train and number of crew members needed on
each team would generally be compatible with the size of other parties visiting
wildernesses. Wilderness visitors could be negatively impacted by the survey crew
camping near them at lakes, but presumably no more so than by other ordinary
visitors. Using horses would contribute in a minor way to the damage to trails and
camping sites by trampling and feeding on surrounding vegetation, expanding the
trail width, increasing the trail's depth and erosion potential, and increasing soil
compaction in tethering areas. Additional physical damage could occur in places
where the survey crew would need to access lakes where no trail exists. In these
situations, the survey crew and its pack train would create a temporary new
disturbance to the landscape; recovery rates in alpine environments would
probably be slow.
Because reduced levels of visitation by general users occur during the fall
period when the survey would take place (although special uses such as hunting
may peak during this period), conflicts of the EPA sampling crews with other
wilderness visitors for backcountry permits would be unlikely. In those wilderness
areas where hunting season would be under way, a potential for conflict could
exist.
Wildlife and endangered/threatened species. Under this alternative, the
effects of noise on wildlife would be eliminated. Although the possibility of
human contact with wildlife would increase, its nature would be no different from
that already occurring and no significant impacts to wildlife would be likely.
Proper coordination with local wildlife officials will ensure that survey teams are
aware of potential interactions with endangered and threatened species and of the
proper responses to take in the event of an encounter.
Water bodies. Because sampling of lakes would be done from an inflatable
Doat, no impacts on water bodies would be expected. Any chemical reagents or
standards needed in the field could be left on land, rather than carried in the boat.
-------
Human safety. This alternative involves having many people sampling high
altitude lakes during the fall when weather conditions are very uncertain.
Sampling teams could be isolated by early fall blizzards and be subjected to
severe weather conditions. Using inflatable rafts for sampling extremely cold,
alpine lakes would be dangerous. In extremely cold lakes, the human body can
tolerate less than ten minutes immersion before severe hypothermia conditions
interfere with judgment and physical performance. An accident in the middle of a
lake could, therefore, cause serious problems.
Accidents involving horses being ridden or led through rocky, mountainous
terrain are not common, but are a possibility. The use of experienced pack
leaders would minimize the likelihood of any problems.
Alternative 3 (Helicopter and horse access)
Wilderness values and use. Impacts for this alternative would be
intermediate between Alternatives 1 and 2, and would depend on the proportion of
lakes sampled via helicopter versus horseback.
Wildlife and endangered/threatened species. This alternative would involve
some minor impacts from aircraft noise, but the overall incidence would be less
than for Alternative 1 because a portion of the lakes would be sampled by ground
crews. Significant effects could be avoided by proper coordination with local
wildlife officials.
Water bodies. Potential effects (potential spills or leaks) on water bodies
under this alternative would be unlikely and would only pertain to those lakes
sampled via helicopter. For those lakes to be accessed with pack horses, the
probability of impact is slight.
Human safety. Potential impacts would involve both the limited possibility
of death or serious injury in a helicopter accident and the possibilities of accident
in sampling cold, alpine lakes from a small rubber boat and in traveling by
horseback in remote areas over difficult terrain.
Alternative 4 (No action)
Wilderness values. This alternative would produce no data that could be used
for identifying acidic deposition problems in wilderness areas and developing
management approaches for addressing them. A potential long-term indirect
impact to wilderness character could be severe if acidic deposition were to
damage forest and/or aquatic ecosystems. In addition, no data would be collected
for the entire western region, and control strategies could not be developed to
protect these areas.
Wilderness uses. There would be no direct impacts to wilderness users under
this alternative. Indirect impacts could result from the absence of data generated
by the survey and no development of management strategies for protecting the
areas from the effects of acidic deposition. Long-term degradation of wilderness
characteristics could cause a diminished fishery resource, fewer and less vigorous
game species, and loss of aesthetic quality of the natural setting.
ix
-------
Wildlife and endangered and threatened species. Because there will be no
activities associated with the NSWS survey within wilderness areas under this
alternative, there should be no direct, short-term impacts of the survey on human
or ecological resources within these areas. Serious indirect impacts might result
from the absence of data generated by the survey and lack of management
strategies for protecting the areas from the effects of acidic deposition to the
degree that such deposition could negatively affect endangered species, especially
aquatic ones.
Human safety. This alternative would involve no impacts to human safety
because wilderness areas would not be sampled.
Consequences for the NSWS Objectives
The NSWS lake survey is designed to provide a high quality data base for
assessing the nature and extent of lakes sensitive to acidic deposition throughout
the United States. The development of these data will enable EPA to respond to a
Congressional mandate to assess the sensitivity of water bodies to acidic
deposition and to develop emission control policies to prevent further
environmental degradation. The consequences of adopting each of the four
alternatives on these objectives are summarized below.
Alternative 1 (Helicopter access only)
Alternative I would enable EPA to meet the objectives of the NSWS. The
majority of lakes selected for sampling in the high mountains of the West could
be sampled during a six-week period between early September and mid-October
when most lakes will be experiencing fall overturn and a representative random
sample can be obtained. Sampling protocols developed and proven during 1984
sampling in the midwestern and eastern portions of the NSWS would be used. All
critical chemical parameters needed for the survey could be measured. The data
so obtained would be of similar quality and directly comparable to data from the
other regions. In addition, there would be no difference between the sampling
protocols used within and outside of wilderness areas. Logistical problems have
been addressed in the 1984 fall surveys, and the experience gained in addressing
these problems could be directly applied to the western survey. A preliminary
evaluation indicates that Alternative 1 would cost 3.9 million dollars (Coate 1985).
Of the twenty-one chemical variables being measured, the analyses for
extractable aluminum, pH, and dissolved inorganic carbon (DIC) are considered
the most critical by EPA in terms of the requirements for sampling by helicopter
to meet the maximum specified holding times. In the NSWS, pH will be used not
only as an indicator of acidification status of lakes, but also as a
quality-assurance check on a number of other measured variables. Dissolved
inorganic carbon (DIC) consists of carbon dioxide, biocarbonate, and carbonate,
the relative proportions of which are a function of pH. These chemical species
contribute to alkalinity, which is a measure of the ability of water to absorb
acidic inputs without changing pH. The DIC data collected in the NSWS will be
used to quantify the contribution of inorganic carbon to alkalinity and acidity, and
to calculate total anion concentration and verify pH measurements, both of which
are quality-assurance measures. High levels of aluminum are considered to be a
probable explanation for observed toxic effects (such as loss of fish populations) in
x
-------
acidified waters. A number of researchers have observed that low-pH (i.e.,
acidic) waters are associated with high concentrations of aluminum. Monomeric
aluminum (species such as Al^+ and the various aluminum hydroxides) appears to
be the species of concern from the standpoint of toxicity to fish, rather than total
aluminum (which also includes polymeric, colloidal, extremely stable organic, and
hydroxy organic complexes).
It is desirable to analyze (or, in the case of aluminum, extract) the samples as
soon as possible because of possible sample degradation. DIC and pH can change
with time as a result of chemical/biological processes within the sample and as a
result of exchange of CO2 with the atmosphere. Aluminum speciation (forms of
the element) can change with time as polynuclear species are formed from
monomeric species present at the time of collection (potentially causing an
underestimate of the true concentration of monomeric aluminum); aluminum
concentrations and speciation may also change as a result of changes in DIC, pH,
and temperature, and as a result of adsorbance onto container surfaces. Because
the NSWS samples would be isolated from the atmosphere and refrigerated,
changes in aluminum speciation or concentrations might not be expected to vary
as rapidly as found by other workers. However, to minimize this potential source
of error, it is desirable to extract the sample as soon as possible (within 12 h).
The Quality Assurance (QA) approach has been defined, documented and
implemented in the NSWS to provide the best possible data to support the
objectives of the NSWS. The utility of the approach has been demonstrated in the
eastern portion of the NSWS. The QA approach for the NSWS involves the
following steps to ensure that adequate data are provided:
1. Standardization of sampling and analytical methods and
procedures.
2. Simplification of the field operations as much as practical.
3. Thorough training of all personnel involved.
4. Use of Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) samples and
procedures to allow verification of the data.
5. Field and laboratory audits to assure that all activities are
properly implemented and performed.
6. Daily QA contact with the field and laboratory activities to
assure that they are properly performed and that any problems
are identified and resolved.
7. Thorough evaluation of the reported data and verification of
data quality.
All of these steps must be performed to assure that adequate data are provided to
support the objectives of the NSWS.
xi
-------
Alternative 2 (Horse access only)
It is probable that the number of lakes that could be sampled under
Alternative 2 would be smaller than for Alternative 1 because not all lakes would
be accessible by horseback. The exact number of lakes that could not be reached
is unknown at this time, but a preliminary analysis of five wilderness areas
suggests that as many as 20% of the lakes would be inaccessible. Adoption of
Alternative 2 would require EPA to develop a new set of sampling protocols so
that samples could be filtered and processed at the site of collection. The new
protocols would introduce additional sources of variation that include: (1) the
possibility of sample contamination during filtration and processing at the
collection site, (2) increased numbers of sampling crews (60 crews as opposed to 5
crews under Alternative 1), and (3) variable transport time to the field base
laboratory because of differing distances and difficulties of access. An additional
study of lakes outside wilderness areas would be needed in which both sets of
protocols would be used so that the comparability of data from the two
approaches could be ascertained. Even with this additional set of studies, the
data would not be of as high a quality as that collected under the NSWS protocols
and the following QA problems are likely to occur:
1. Data across sampling teams, field base stations, and regions might
not be comparable. Thus key objectives of the NSWS might not be
achieved.
2. More complicated logistics would be likely to reduce or eliminate
the ability of the survey to provide comparable data of acceptable
quality.
3. Increased staff requirements would mean more personnel involved
in the samplin process and a higher probability that problems
would ariseof data not being comparable or being of unacceptable
quality.
4. Sample contamination would be much more likely to occur and to
result in invalid data and loss of key survey objectives.
5. Regardless, additional QA and data management cost would be
incurred just to verify that the problems did occur (i.e., additional
costs to find out the data could not be used).
6. Holding times that have been established and must be met would
likely be exceeded. Anyone opposed to the conclusions of the
survey or subsequent regulatory actions could use the established
holding times (if they were exceeded) in a court action to challenge
data quality.
Logistic problems under this alternative have a high probability of limiting
the attainment of the NSWS objectives. These problems include: (I) assembling
and training approximately 120 people to do the lake sampling; (2) arranging for
120 experienced wranglers and riders to work with the sampling crews;
(3) arranging for the use of 480 horses (4 riding horses and 4 pack horses for each
crew); (4) acquiring 60 sets of sampling equipment including a number of items
-------
that are not readily available (e.g., Hydrolabs); (5) calibrating equipment such as
a Hydrolab, which is difficult under the best of conditions; (6) developing
operation and communication plans for coordinating the transport of samples
from the lakes to helicopter landing sites; and (7) developing contingency plans
for sampling under adverse weather conditions that are likely to occur in high
mountain environments in transitional seasons.
In summary, adoption of Alternative 2 would present major logistical
problems which in turn, and more importantly, would introduce a large and
presently unquantifiable risk of jeopardizing the data quality needed for the
survey.. A preliminary evaluation of Alternative 2 indicates that it would cost
7.0 million dollars (Coate 1985).
Alternative 3 (Helicopter and horse access)
Alternative 3 would differ from Alternative 2 in that every effort would be
made to maintain NSWS sampling protocols as closely as possible. Samples from
lakes accessed via horseback would be collected from rubber boats but would
then be returned to the field base laboratories within 8 h so that operational
holding times could be met for critical parameters.
Quality assurance problems discussed for Alternative 2 would also be likely
to occur for this alternative. Although the objectives of this alternative would
be to maintain NSWS protocols as closely as possible, there would be greater
uncertainties and possibilities for error than for Alternative 1. These would be
result from increased numbers of samplers, greater chance of contamination
during sampling from rubber boats, less control of sample conditions during
transport, and greater chance of not sampling the necessary number of lakes due
to adverse weather conditions. An unknown source of variation associated with
subjecting the samples to constant motion during transport on the pack horses
would need to be evaluated. An additional study of lakes outside wilderness
areas, as described for Alternative 2, would also be needed to determine the
comparability of data.
Problems of logistics would be similar to those described for Alternative 2,
although fewer sampling crews and less equipment would be needed. The risk of
obtaining inadequate data to meet the survey objectives is still high for this
alternative because of the unknowns associated with collecting samples via
horseback. A preliminary evaluation indicates that Alternative 3 would cost 5.2
million dollars (Coate 1985).
Alternative (No action)
The principal consequence to NSWS objectives under Alternative 4 would be
that more than half of the lakes randomly selected for sampling in the West
would be omitted from the study. Although a data base could be developed, it
would have little meaning because many of the most sensitive lakes in high
mountain situations would not be represented. The data could not be used to
make any evaluation of the situation in wilderness areas and would be of little, if
any, use to wilderness area managers. Attempts to extrapolate the data to a
regional level as a basis for developing and/or evaluating possible emission
-------
control strategies would be questionable. The NSWS management team has
concluded that the entire survey for the western region would not be done if this
alternative were selected.
CONCLUSIONS
Tables S-l and S-2 present summary comparisons of the four alternatives
considered in this EA. Table S-l indicates that Alternative 1 and 3 have higher
environmental impacts on wilderness areas than Alternatives 2 and 4, but all of
these potential impacts are of a minor and transitory nature. Table S-2 clearly
shows that only Alternative 1 provides the type of high-quality data for the most
representative set of lakes with the minimum set of logistic problems that will
permit the survey objectives to be obtained. A more detailed discussion of this
comparison is given in Sect. 2.5. Based on these two parallel lines of analysis,
EPA has concluded that Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative because (1) the
environmental impacts are temporary and not significant and (2) it is the only
alternative which will clearly result in the acquisition of the data necessary to
meet the national need for evaluating the nature and extent of acidic deposition.
xiv
-------
Table S-l. Comparison of Environmental Consequences for the Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(helicopters) (horses)
Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(horses and (no action)
helicopters)
1. Wilderness Values
o Wilderness Character
- Long-term preservation +a + +
- Precedent setting - 0-0
o Wilderness solitude - 0
o Wilderness uses
< - Hunting and other
recreation - 0
- Scientific study + + + 0
2. Biota (including E/T species) - 0
3. Human safety (probability
of serious injury or death) - 0
4. Cumulative effects 0 0 0 0
a,,+" indicates a positive effect; "0" indicates no effect; indicates a minor negative effect.
-------
Table S-2. Summary Comparison of Consequences to the NSWS for the Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4
(helicopters) (horses) (horses and (no action)
helicopters)
1. Oata Quality
o Sample Design +a -
o Chemical Measurements + -? -? NA
2. Logistics + NA
a,,+" indicates a positive effect; "0" indicates no effect; indicates a negative effect.
"?" indicates considerable uncertainty which could only be resolved by the comparability studies
discussed in the text.
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS iii
LIST OF FIGURES xxi
LIST OF TABLES xxiii
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS xxv
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION 1
1.1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ACTION 1
1.3 NEED FOR THE ACTION 4
1.4 THE SCOPING PROCESS 6
1.5 ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT
ANALYZED 8
2. ALTERNATIVES 10
2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (USE OF HELICOPTERS ONLY) 10
2.1.1 Sampling Design 10
2.1.2 Sampling Methods 14
2.1.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures 14
2.1.4 Quality Assurance 21
2.1.5 Logistics 23
2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (USE OF GROUND ACCESS ONLY) 25
2.2.1 Sampling Design 25
2.2.2 Sampling Methods 25
2.2.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures 26
2.2.4 Quality Assurance 26
2.2.5 Logistics 27
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 (COMBINED USE OF HELICOPTERS AND
GROUND ACCESS) 27
2.3.1 Sampling Design 28
2.3.2 Sampling Methods 28
2.3.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures 28
2.3.4 Quality Assurance 28
2.3.5 Logistics 28
2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 (NOT SAMPLING IN WILDERNESS AREAS) 29
2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES 29
xvii
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 32
3.1 WILDERNESS VALUES, USES, AND PROTECTION
REQUIREMENTS 32
3.1.1 Wilderness Values 32
3.1.2 Wilderness Uses 33
3.1.3 Wilderness Protection 33
3.2 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WILDERNESS AREAS 37
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF CONCERN 47
3.4 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES 48
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 49
4.1 ALTERNATIVE I (USE OF HELICOPTERS ONLY) 49
4.1.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values 49
4.1.2 Impacts to Recreation 53
4.1.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endangered Species 61
4.1.4 Impacts to Water Bodies 62
4.1.5 Impacts to Human Safety 63
4.1.6 Mitigation Measures 64
4.1.7 Consequences to Survey Objectives 68
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts 70
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 71
4.2.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values 71
4.2.2 Impacts to Recreation 72
4.2.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endangered Species 73
4.2.4 Impacts to Water Bodies 73
4.2.5 Impacts to Human Safety 73
4.2.6 Mitigation Measures 74
4.2.7 Consequences to Survey Objectives 74
4.2.8 Cumulative Impacts 85
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 85
4.3.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values 85
4.3.2 Impacts to Recreation 85
4.3.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endangered Species S5
xviii
-------
CONTENTS
PAGE
4.3.4 Impacts to Water Bodies 86
4.3.5 Impacts to Human Safety 86
4.3.6 Mitigation Measures 86
4.3.7 Consequences to Survey Objectives 86
4.3.8 Cumulative Impacts 86
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 87
4.4.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values 87
4.4.2 Impacts to Recreation 87
4.4.3 Impacts to Biotic Resources 87
4.4.4 Impacts to Human Safety 87
4.4.5 Mitigation Measures 87
4.4.6 Consequences to the Survey Objectives 87
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts 89
5. LIST OF PREPARERS 90
6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT 92
7. REFERENCES 102
APPENDIX A LIST OF LAKES PROPOSED FOR SAMPLING IN
WILDERNESS AREAS AND NATIONAL PARKS A-l
APPENDIX B CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE U.S. FISH AND
WILDLIFE SERVICE B-l
APPENDIX C NOISE C-l
APPENDIX D SAFETY D-l
xix
-------
BLANK
xx
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
2.1-1 Helicopter sampling crew activities 11
2.1-2 Distribution of alkalinity classes in the western
region 12
2.1-3 Effect of storage time on (a) dissolved inorganic
carbon (DIC) and (b) pH in samples of water from five
Adirondack Mountain (New York) lakes 17
2.1-4 Effect of storage time on monomeric aluminum in
unprocessed samples of water from Big Moose Lake 18
3.2-1 Wilderness areas and national parks in California with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 38
3.2-2 Wilderness areas and national parks in Colorado and New
Mexico with lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 39
3.2.3 Wilderness areas and national parks in Idaho with lakes
proposed for sampling in the NSWS 40
3.2-4 Wilderness areas and national parks in Montana with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 41
3.2-5 Wilderness areas and national parks in Oregon with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 42
3.2-6 Wilderness areas and national parks in Utah with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 43
3.2-7 Wilderness areas and national parks in Washington with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 44
3.2-8 Wilderness areas and national parks in Wyoming with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS 45
4.1-1 Distribution of recreational use, Spanish Peaks
Primitive Area, Montana, 1978 52
4.1-2 Relationship of proposed helicopter use to acceptable/
unacceptable variation in the perceived wilderness
experience 58
xxi
-------
BLANK
xxii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
S-l Comparison of environmental consequences for the
alternatives xv
S-2 Summary comparison of consequences to the NSWS
for the alternatives xvi
2.1-1 Total number of lakes available for sample selection
in the mountainous West region by subregion and
alkalinity class 13
2.1-2 Number of lakes randomly selected by alkalinity class
and wilderness status, with lakes in national parks
classified as being within wilderness areas 13
2.1-3 Sample aliquots prepared by the field base laboratories 20
3.2-1 Distribution of lakes within and outside wilderness
areas by state 46
4.1-1 Intensity of helicopter noise relative to common noise
levels 55
4.2-1 Accessibility by horseback to NSWS sample lakes in
selected wilderness areas 81
4.4-1 Number of lakes selected in and out of wilderness areas
with numbers expected based on chance alone 88
A-l List of lakes in federally designated wilderness areas. A-l
A-2 List of lakes in national parks A-l7
C-l Bell 206L takeoff/approach data table C-2
C-2 Bell 206L level flyover data table C-3
C-3 Bell 206L hover data table C-4
D-l Weather or terrain factors as contributing causes in
rotorcraft accidents, 1977-1979 D-3
D-2 Accident rates for piston- and turbine-powered
rotorcraft, 1977-1979 D-4
XXUl
-------
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
D-3 Number of accidents by type of power in relation to
in-flight phase of operation D-4
D-4 Summary of helicopter activity, National Surface Water
Survey, Fall 1984 D-6
xxiv
-------
GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS
D1C
Dissolved Inorganic Carbon
DQO
Data Quality Objective
EA
Environmental Assessment
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FAA
Federal Aviation Administration
FS
U.S. Forest Service
MIBK
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
NPS
U.S. National Park Service
NSWS
National Surface Water Survey
ORNL
Oak Ridge National Labortory
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Control
USGS
U.S. Geological Service
XXV
-------
1. PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR THE ACTION
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to sample 498
lakes in federally designated wilderness areas and national parks during the
western part of the National Surface Water Survey (NSWS). The NSWS has been
undertaken to provide high quality data for evaluating the nature and extent of
acidic deposition throughout the United States. Sampling protocols established
for the national survey call for the use of helicopters to gain access to lakes for
sampling. Helicopters have already been used in the eastern and midwestern parts
of the survey. The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the National Park Service (NPS)
will have to decide which sampling plan for wilderness areas, if any, can be
approved under the Wilderness Act of 1964.
This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared to evaluate the
environmental consequences of alternative means of gaining access to wilderness
areas to meet the objectives of the NSWS. Based on this assessment, EPA has
reviewed the possible sampling alternatives and reached a conclusion on the
preferred alternative. This EA is being provided to the FS and the NPS for their
use in evaluating the alternatives, including EPA's preferred one.
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE ACTION
There is increasing evidence that acidic deposition may be occurring in
western areas of the United States, including wilderness areas. The EPA is
responsible for carrying out a survey to determine the extent of this problem for
the entire country, and this survey will serve as a basis for policy decisions on
control measures. To the degree that harmful effects due to acidic deposition
may be taking place in wilderness areas, this survey should be viewed as an
integral part of an over-all control strategy which will be essential to the
management of the wilderness system and individual sites within it.
Concern about the effects of acidic deposition on western high mountain
lakes has increased during the past several years (Yuhnke and Oppenheimer 1984).
An Environmental Defense Fund study (Environmental Defense Fund 1981)
emphasizes that "The most urgent need is for better information regarding the
geographical distribution and rate of acidic deposition in the West." Recent
studies have shown that high mountain lakes that have low buffering capacities,
and are therefore sensitive to acidic deposition, are present in California (Wilson
and Wood 1984; California Air Resources Board 1983), Colorado (Kling and Grant
1984; Turk and Adams 1983), Oregon (Nelson and Delwiche 1983), Washington
(Welch and Spyridakis 1984), and Wyoming (Galbraith 1984; Stuart 1984). More
general reviews indicate that acidic deposition occurs along the entire West Coast
(Powers and Rambo 1981) from California to Washington and in the Intermountain
West (Yuhnke and Oppenheimer 1984). Although there is no clear demonstration
that lake acidification currently occurs in this region, most researchers agree that
continued acid loading from new and existing sources is cause for concern that
effects similar to those being observed in eastern North America and Scandinavia
will also occur in the West. Potential new sources of acidic emissions include
-------
2
(1) planned smelters directly across the border in Mexico, (2) proposed coal-fired
power plants in the Rocky Mountain states, and (3) natural gas processing plants
(Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico) and fertilizer plants (Wyoming) (Vuhnke and
Oppenheimer 198A).
The NSWS is a part of a national effort [mandated under the Acid
Precipitation Act of 1980 (Title VII, Pub. L. 96-294)] to evaluate the extent of
aquatic resources sensitive to acidic deposition and assess the environmental,
social, and economic effects on these resources. The survey has been designed to
provide a statistically consistent set of data that can be used to assess the number
and distribution of lakes throughout the United States that are sensitive to acidic
deposition. This data base could assist regulatory and land management agencies
in developing long-term monitoring programs and in designing corrective
measures.
The NSWS was initiated at the request of the Administrator of the EPA in
October 1983 when an assessment of the effects of acidic deposition on aquatic
resources indicated that extant data could not provide a quantitative basis for
documenting the present chemical and biological status of aquatic resources in
the United States (USEPA 1984a, Galloway et al. 1984). This review found that
existing data could not be quantitatively compared because (1) different
analytical methods had been used in various studies, (2) different chemical
parameters were measured, (3) sampling locations were not selected at random,
therefore limiting the usefulness of the data in characterizing regions, and (4) the
quality of the data was highly variable. As a result of these findings, the NSWS
has been rigorously designed to provide statistically comparable data which can be
extrapolated to regional and national levels.
The NSWS consists of three phases: Phase I is designed to quantify the
regional chemistry of lakes and streams throughout the United States, with a
focus on areas now believed to contain the majority of low alkalinity waters;
Phase II will quantify the biological components and temporal water chemistry
variability within and among regionally representative lakes and streams, as
determined in Phase I; and Phase III will initiate long-term monitoring of lakes
and streams representative of a geographic region of the United States. This EA
considers only the Phase I survey of western wilderness lakes for several reasons:
(1) surveys of streams in all three phases will not use helicopters; (2) helicopters
will not be used to gain access to wilderness areas during Phases II and III; (3) in
most, if not all, cases, lakes to be sampled during Phases II and III can be selected
outside of wilderness areas; and (4) no permanent equipment will be installed in
wilderness areas during any phase of the study.
The primary objectives of the Phase I synoptic survey of lakes are to
determine (1) the percentage (by number, area, and location) of lakes in the
acidic-deposition-susceptible regions of the United States that are acidic; (2) the
percentage (by number, area, and location) of low-alkalinity lakes in the
acidic-deposition-susceptible regions of the United States; and (3) a selection of
regionally representative lakes that can be used in Phases II and III of the NSWS
(USEPA 1984a). The survey has been designed to use state-of-the-art analytical
methods, some of which have been developed specifically for the NSWS. A
detailed quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program has been established
for all aspects of the survey (i.e, field sampling, field station operations,
laboratory analyses, and data management). A major effort has been directed
-------
3
toward minimizing variability associated with field collection, handling of
samples, laboratory bias in analysis, and data entry. This detailed QA/QC
program responds to EPA Order 5360.1, "Policy and Program Requirements to
Implement the Quality Assurance Program" (Aim 1984).
Under EPA Order 5360.1, all Agency data collection activities are to be
based on a program that will ensure that the resulting data are of known quality
and are suitable for the intended purpose. Data quality objectives were
incorporated into the lake survey by means of the following process (Michael
1984):
1. Define lake survey objectives as commissioned by
William D. Ruckleshaus, Administrator of the U.S. EPA.
2. Identify intended uses of data and primary and secondary data
users, including Ruckleshaus' needs and commitments to
Congress.
3. Clarify the problem through defining and setting priorities for
objectives.
4. Develop overall conceptual approach.
5. Determine options and develop specific approaches to meet
identified objectives.
6. Develop survey design with rationale for each procedure used.
7. Develop specific Data Quality Objectives (DQOs).
8. Develop analytical protocols and QA/QC procedures to be
followed.
9. Implement the study design through a pilot study.
10. Revise/modify approach or methodology where required with the
approval of senior technical staff and program manager
appointees.
Specific aspects of the NSWS QA/QC program are discussed throughout the EA, as
appropriate and in Sect. 2.1.4.
The EPA proposes using helicopters to gain access to the lakes for several
reasons: (1) a large number of lakes must be sampled, (2) the sampling window is
very narrow (3 to 6 weeks), (3) holding times for critical chemical parameters are
short (12 h maximum in some cases), and (4) concern for the safety of survey
crews during periods when weather conditions can change rapidly. Sampling
protocols, including the use of helicopters, have been clearly defined to minimize
outside sources of variability and to ensure that the data collected are of the
highest quality.
-------
4
The Phase I lake survey for the eastern United States was completed during
the fall of 1984. Over 2000 lakes were sampled by helicopter between early
September and mid December. Samples were taken to field base laboratories
where they were processed and shipped immediately to analytical laboratories for
final measurements. Holding times for samples were always met, and few
problems were encountered in meeting the procedural objectives of the study.
Sampling of the 888 western region lakes has been deferred to the fall of 1985 so
that the issue of gaining access to wilderness area lakes can be resolved.
1.3 NEED FOR THE ACTION
Approximately 48% of the western lakes selected for sampling during the
Phase I survey are located in federally designated wilderness areas, and an
additional 73 lakes that are not so designated occur within national parks
(Sect. 3.2). For purposes of this analysis, concerns associated with national parks
are assumed to be similar to those for wilderness areas; thus a separate analysis is
not presented. Survey lakes are concentrated in wilderness areas occurs primarily
because (I) there are many federally designated wilderness areas in the west and
(2) both wilderness areas and lakes potentially sensitive to acidic deposition tend
to be found at high elevations. Use of aircraft, including helicopters, is generally
prohibited within wilderness areas.
Wilderness areas have been established under the Wilderness Act of 1964
(Pub. L. 88-577) and related legislation, as part of a National Wilderness
Preservation System. Under Sect. 2(c) of the Wilderness Act a wilderness area is
described as follows:
A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own
works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where
the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where
man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is
further defined to mean in this chapter an area of underdeveloped
Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without
permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and
managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which
(1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of
nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable;
(2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and
unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of
land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and
use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological,
geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or
historical value.
Section 2(a) of the Act states further that a wilderness
... shall be administered for the use and enjoyment of the American
people in such a manner as will leave them unimpaired for future use
and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide for the protection of
these areas, the preservation of their wilderness character, and for the
gathering and dissemination of information regarding their use and
enjoyment as wilderness.
-------
5
Section 4(c) of the Act specifically prohibits certain uses which are
inconsistent with wilderness preservation, among these being the use of motor
vehicles and motorized equipment and the landing of aircraft. Section 4(c) states
Except as specifically provided for in this chapter, and subject to
existing private rights, there shall be no commercial enterprise and no
permanent road within any wilderness area designated by this chapter
and, except as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this chapter (including
measures required in emergencies involving the health and safety of
persons within the area), there shall be no temporary road, no use of
motor vehicles, motorized equipment or motorboats, no landing of
aircraft, no other form of mechanical transport, and no structure or
installation within any such area.
Section 4(d)(1) also sets 1 forth special provisions for permitting
nonconforming wilderness uses, among them aircraft use where necessary to
control fire, insects, and disease, under the discretion of the Secretary of
Agriculture. Activities compatible with wilderness preservation may be carried
out for the purpose of gathering information about mineral or other resources.
Wilderness areas are much more than areas for primitive recreation
experiences. As stated at a recent FS workshop on air quality and acidic
deposition (Deitemeyer 1984)
Wilderness is and has always been intended to be a living museum, a
place of historical and cultural research value, a multiple-use area
that continues to provide clean water, wildlife habitat, grazing and
mineral resources where appropriate. Every bio-physical component
of Wilderness is absolutely essential to the whole. ... The hydrology,
soil chemistry, meteorological effects and visibility are critical
components of the Wilderness ecosystems that allow natural processes
to evolve and be experienced. No one component can be altered
without affecting the other components and so allow for the retention
of the character of the Wilderness as required by the Wilderness Act.
The loss of any one component may result in the loss of a unique gene
pool, a loss of a research and discovery opportunity and possibly a
future foregone."
Use of aircraft by federal agencies and others can be authorized if an
administrative or cooperative activity is essential to managing a wilderness area
and "cannot be reasonably achieved using primitive methods or by nonmechanical
means." In determining what is reasonable, there must be evidence that "the need
is based on more than efficiency, convenience, and economy [USDA undated
(Sect. 2320.3)]."
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the
Clean Air Act (42 USC 1857 et seq.), federal land managers of Class I areas (i.e.,
wilderness areas and national parks) have the responsibility to protect "air quality
related values" (AQRVs) threatened by new air pollution sources or modifications
to existing sources. The AQRVs include visibility, flora, fauna, soils, and water
quality; effects considered might be direct and immediate or indirect and
-------
6
long-term, as in the case of acidic deposition. The availability of a regional data
base on susceptibility of lakes to acidification (that would be developed by the
NSWS) would be a valuable source of information for the FS, the NPS, and other
land managers in assessing the effects of new and modified air pollution sources
on wilderness areas and in fulfilling their responsibilities under the Clean Air Act.
In addition, there is some evidence wilderness areas may be affected by
acidic deposition. This could have a deleterious effect on aquatic species,
especially endangered ones. Given the large geographic scope of possible effects
and sources, the survey will provide Federal land managers with important data on
the current impact of this problem, if any. In the future, should monitoring show
increasing impacts of acid deposition on non-wilderness lakes, this data will
provide an essential baseline to determine if individual wilderness lakes, or classes
of such lakes, are at risk, and will therefore be integral to management of these
areas for acid deposition impacts.
1.4 THE SCOPING PROCESS
A scoping process was undertaken to involve affected government agencies
and the public in defining issues to be addressed in the EA. The scoping process
has consisted of three types of interactions. Initially, meetings were held
between headquarters staff of EPA, the FS, and the NPS to discuss the concerns
of the land management agencies and to define the type of analysis that would be
needed. Following a meeting in Washington on November 7, 1984, EPA decided to
hold a series of scoping sessions with FS staff in the five most affected FS
Regions, to describe the proposed survey and solicit regional FS concerns.
Meetings were held in Missoula, Montana; Ogden, Utah; Portland, Oregon; San
Francisco, California; and Lakewood, Colorado, between November 26 and
December 7, 1984. In addition to FS and EPA staff, representatives from the
Department of the Interior and various state agencies attended some of the
meetings. On December 14, 1984, a request for public comment was sent directly
to interested organizations. On December 20th, a press release was sent to the
Associated Press and United Press International wire services in each of the
affected states. Since that time numerous stories have appeared in the press and
on the radio. These stories have generated a number of comments to EPA.
As a result of comments provided by the FS, other land management
agencies, environmental groups, and interested members of the public, the
following major issues were identified:
1. EPA should develop an EA that addresses the entire NSWS
action, not just the segment dealing with sampling western
wilderness area lakes with helicopters;
2. The EA should not be a justification of a specific alternative;
3. The mandate in the Wilderness Act restricting the use of
mechanized equipment, aircraft landing, and structures of any
kind should be included;
-------
7
A. The no action alternative should be developed as a realistic way
of achieving the NSWS goal by adjusting or expanding the sample
design;
5. The need for sampling protocols that require short holding times
(thereby requiring the use of helicopters) should be discussed,
and alternative sampling protocols should be considered;
6. Alternatives for sample collection in wilderness areas that were
considered but rejected, including ground access, onsite sample
preparation, not sampling in wilderness areas, not sampling
time-dependent parameters, etc., should be discussed;
7. Cumulative impacts should be addressed;
8. Effects of using helicopters on endangered/threatened species
and big game should be evaluated;
9. Effects of helicopters on hunting, particularly special hunts, such
as those for bighorn sheep, should be addressed;
10. Modifications to the sampling schedule to times of the year when
use of wilderness areas is low should be considered; and
11. Lakes of particular interest to land management agencies should
be considered as possible additions to the list of lakes to be
surveyed.
These concerns and issues have been taken into account in developing the
four alternatives evaluated in this EA. Issue No. 1 was rejected because the
decision to be made is whether or not to sample in wilderness areas using of
helicopter access. Also the eastern portion of the NSWS has already been
completed and no EA was required, issue 2 has been addressed through the
development of reasonable alternatives, which are considered in this EA; Issues 3,
8, 9, and 11 are all addressed in the description and evaluation of Alternative 1.
Issue 4 is considered in conjunction with the evaluation of Alternative 4. Issue 5
is evaluated in Alternative 2. Issue 6 is considered in Sect. 1.5. Issue 7 is
considered in the evaluation of each alternative and Issue 11 is considered under
mitigation for Alternative 1.
The scoping process is the initial phase of a public involvement process that
will continue during and after the period of review for this EA. This process
consists of two parts, direct contacts with public interest groups and individuals
during preparation of the EA, and working with the press and media during the
survey to inform the public of NSWS activities at the local level. All these
activities will be covered in a public involvement plan that will be distributed
with the final EA and will be an important mitigation measure for alerting
wilderness area users to the schedules and reasons for NSWS activities in specific
areas (Sect. 4.1.6).
-------
8
1.5 ALTERNATIVES AND ISSUES CONSIDERED BUT NOT ANALYZED
Several suggestions were made during the public comment period that EPA
consider an alternative using access on foot, which would involve transporting the
necessary equipment by backpack. A preliminary evaluation of this suggestion
indicates that the amount of equipment required for sampling a lake (including a
rubber boat, a Hydrolab, ice chests for preserving the samples, other sampling
equipment, any camping equipment, and survival gear) would be bulky and heavy.
Although it might be possible to sample a few lakes at short distances from a
helicopter landing site outside a wilderness area, the difficulty of the terrain in
such areas and the amount of equipment needed could limit the feasibility of such
an approach. Although this alternative has not been fully evaluated in the EA,
EPA believes that the consequences to survey objectives would be the same as
those discussed for Alternative 2 (Sect. 4.2.7), which involves the use of horses.
Suggestions were made during the public comment period that volunteers
from interested environmental groups be used to collect the samples. Use of
volunteers would result in the potential for a large statistical error because of the
large number of people that would be involved in collecting samples.
Furthermore, liability considerations in case of accidents during the sampling
restrict EPA's ability to use volunteers. For these reasons, this alternative is not
evaluated further in the EA.
It was suggested that another alternative would be to reduce the number of
chemical parameters measured for wilderness lakes to those that do not have
critically short holding times. This alternative would reduce the need to transport
the samples quickly to a laboratory for initial analysis and sample preparation.
Some elements of this alternative are incorporated in Alternative 2 (Sect. 2.2).
The NSWS management team feels, however, that the proposed approach would
eliminate the ability to collect data on critical parameters that need to be
assessed (e.g., monomeric aluminum and dissolved inorganic carbon) and,
therefore, the studies of lakes in wilderness areas would be of little value (see
Alternative 4, Sects. 2.4 and 4.4). For this reason, the suggested alternative is
not considered further in the assessment.
A concern was raised about the effects of helicopters on grazing in
wilderness areas. Grazing is allowed in wilderness areas only in situations where
previous use was established before designation. Preliminary evaluation of this
concern indicates that any disturbance would be negligible and would not affect
inherent wilderness values. Therefore, further analysis is not deemed necessary.
If helicopters are used, advance planning should prevent most conflicts with
grazing animals, and pilots landing on lakes where stock are present in large
numbers should be instructed to approach the lake in such a way as to avoid the
animals.
Sampling in the spring, rather than the fall, has been suggested as a means
of avoiding conflicts with hunters in wilderness areas. However, this would have
such severe consequences to the NSWS that it was not evaluated in detail in this
EA. Variability of spring lake conditions is high, depending on winter snowfall and
temperatures, which in turn affect snowpack, runoff, ice thickness, and time of
ice-out. Incomplete spring mixing can result in virtually no "window" between
ice-out and the onset of summer stratification for individual lakes (USEPA
-------
9
1984a). On the other hand, the "window" for a given subregion (e.g., the
Cascades) could be very long (up to several months) because of differences in lake
morphology and aspect relative to the sun, complicating planning and logistics.
Also, sampling in the spring could increase the potential for disturbing wildlife
during sensitive reproductive periods (e.g., nesting of raptors); in particular,
sampling in the spring could conflict with this period for the federally designated
as threatened/ endangered bald eagle, peregrine falcon, and whooping crane
(Sect. A.1.3).
-------
10
2. ALTERNATIVES
2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (USE QF HELICOPTERS ONLY)
Alterriatave 1 would involve the use of helicopters to sample all lakes in the
survey, including the 498 lakes that occur in wilderness areas and national parks
(see the map on the cover page). The helicopters would operate out of field base
stations located at five regional airports (Sect. 2.4). Samples would be collected
each day and returned to the field base laboratory (explained in Sect. 2.1.3) where
they would be analyzed for certain physicochemical characteristics and processed
for shipping to analytical laboratories. Before sampling a lake, the helicopter
would circle the lake so that pictures and notes on land use and lake
characteristics could be taken. The helicopter would then land on the lake,
briefly cruise the center of the lake to determine the depth, and obtain a sample
at the deepest part. During sampling, the helicopter engine would remain on so
that position on the surface could be maintained at the sampling station and for
safety reasons. The sampling process would take approximately 20 to 30 min. No
permanent sampling apparatus would be left in the lake or its surroundings.
Figure 2.1-1 shows the steps involved in collecting samples by helicopter.
2.1.1 Sampling Design
Lakes to be sampled in the West have been randomly selected as part of the
lake selection process for the entire national survey. Alternatives I, 2, and 3
would all involve sampling as many of these randomly selected lakes as possible.
Lakes have been selected using a stratified random sampling design as
follows. The sample was regionalized to restrict the lakes to areas potentially
sensitive to acidic deposition (Omernik and Powers 1983). After the regions of
interest were designated (Northeast, upper Midwest, Southeast, mountainous
West), subregions were delineated based on similarities in geographic and other
characteristics (Omernik and Kinney 1984). For example, mountain ranges, such
as the Adirondacks in the Northeast and the Cascades in the mountainous West,
would become subregions.
Within subregions, existing data on lake alkalinity were used to delineate
areas of probable similar alkalinity or alkalinity strata. Decisions on boundaries
of alkalinity strata sometimes were supported by other information known to be
associated with alkalinity. For example, in the Northeast, alkalinity is strongly
associated with land use (viz., lakes in undisturbed forested areas tend to show
low alkalinity while those in agricultural areas show relatively high alkalinity).
Subregions and alkalinity strata for the mountainous West region are shown in
Fig. 2.1-2.
Within each stratum (alkalinity class-within subregion-within region), 50
lakes were randomly selected as follows. The lakes available for selection within
each stratum were identified on standard U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangles. Each was given a number to be entered into a computer. The
number of lakes available for sample selection within each western subregion and
alkalinity stratum is shown in Table 2.1-1. (Information to subdivide these totals
by wilderness status was not available for this EA.) From this sample universe.
-------
11
Field Station
v
Excursion 1
enroute
Lake
Site
1.
2.
3.
4.
Hydrolab Calibration 1.
Check list of equip- 2.
ment and supplies for
day's sampling
Load helicopter
Check list of lakes to be
sampled and file flight plan
with station coordinator
Site description
Aerial photographs
Next Lake
Same Procedure
Field Station
1.
2.
3.
4.
Unload samples.
File Lake Data Forms with
station coordinator.
Check Hydrolab calibration
and perform any equipment
maintenance.
Plan and prepare for next day's
sampling.
Next Excursion
1. Lake depth
measurement
2. Profile conductance
and T. Determine
stratification
status.
3. Secchi disk depth
determi nation
4. Sample Collection
5. Obtain DIC and pH
syringe samples
6. Transfer remaining
sample to a"
4-liter container
7. If necessary, obtain
a duplicate sample
8. If necessary, pre-
pare a blank sample
9. Verify that forms
and labels are cor-
rectly filled out
10. Depart from the lake
site
Fig. 2.1-1. Helicopter sampling crew activities (Source: Hillman et al. 1984).
-------
Alkalinity Classes
m
EC
m
> 200
ED
HA
Fig. 2.1-2. Distribution of alkalinity classes in the western region (Source: Omernick and
Powers 1983).
-------
13
Table 2.1-1. Total number of lakes available for sample selection in
the mountainous West region by subregion and alkalinity
class
Subregion
Alkalinity "A B l D E Total
1
1,885
695
343
885
150
3,958
2
538
724
675
1,024
261
3,222
3
383
781
2,317
1,051
^sl
00
4*
6,326
Total
2,806
2,200
3,335
2,970
2,195
13,506
Table 2.1-2. Number of lakes randomly selected by alkalinity class and
wilderness status, with lakes in national parks
classified as being within wilderness areas
Alkalinity class Status
In wilderness Out of wilderness
1 248 54
2 151 144
3 _99 J92
Totals 498 390
-------
14
the sample (50 lakes/stratum) was then randomly selected. In each stratum,
additional lakes have been randomly selected to serve as alternates, because
some selected lakes will not be suitable for sampling (e.g., lake no longer
exists, is found to be too shallow, or is flowing water).
Of the lakes selected, about half are within wilderness areas,
reflecting the high proportion of relatively sensitive lakes likely to occur in
remote, high altitude areas. An even larger proportion are found in the
lowest (most sensitive to acidification) alkalinity stratum (Table 2.1-2). The
nature of the random selection process is such that, if the process were
repeated from the same group of available lakes (Table 2.1-1), a similar
proportion would probably fall in wilderness areas, although different
individual lakes would be involved. The use of random sampling is critical to
meeting survey objectives, because otherwise most of the planned statistical
tests could be rendered invalid.
2.1.2 Sampling Methods
The proposed sampling method (the method used in the East in
1984) under this alternative is described in the NSWS Methods Manual
(Hillman et al. 1984) and summarized in Fig. 2.1-1. In summary, lakes would
be located from the air with the aid of LORAN coordinates. The shape of
the lake, as seen on USGS maps, would also be used, as well as topographic
features observed from the helicopter. Aerial photographs of the selected
lake and its shoreline would be taken from the helicopter. In addition to
photographs, sketches of each lake would be made directly on the data
sheets as a further precaution to ensure that the correct lake is sampled.
At that time, a decision would be made as to whether the lake would be
sampled (i.e., it is not, for example, a flowing-water system or covered by
standing timber). Information would then be recorded on watershed
characteristics (e.g., nearby land use and disturbance). After the helicopter
landed on the lake surface at approximately the deepest point,
measurements of conductivity, pH, and temperature would be taken using a
calibrated Hydrolab; it would then be decided whether the lake was
stratified by comparing bottom and surface temperatures. Transparency of
the lake water would be determined using a Secchi disk. Finally, a water
sample would be taken from a depth of 1.5 m, using a Van Dorn sampler.
From the sampler, 60-mL samples would be withdrawn into syringes (which
would then be sealed to maintain isolation from the atmosphere and prevent
de-gassing) for later determination of pH and dissolved inorganic carbon
(DIC); most of the sample would be transferred into a 4-L container. Both
the 4-L and syringe samples would be placed in a cooler equipped with
frozen gel-packs.
2.1.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures
The following 21 chemical variables, as well as color and turbidity,
were selected as the minimum number to be measured to evaluate
adequately the present status of and future effects on sensitive lakes:
acidity
alkalinity
aluminum, extractable
(i.e., monomeric)
aluminum, total
magnesium, dissolved
manganese, dissolved
nitrate, dissolved
organic carbon, dissolved
dH
-------
15
ammonium, dissolved
phosphorus total
potassium, dissolved
calcium, dissolved
chloride, dissolved
fluoride, dissolved
silica, dissolved
sodium, dissolved
inorganic carbon, dissolved
iron, dissolved
specific conductance
sulfate, dissolved
The variables and analytical methods proposed for the NSWS (and used in the East
in 1984) were critically reviewed by, and developed with the concurrence of,
environmental scientists and analytical chemists from a variety of U.S. and
Canadian institutions, including the USGS, Illinois State Water Survey,
universities, and consulting firms (USEPA 1984b,c).
The analyses for extractable aluminum, pH, and DIC (on samples
representative of in-situ lake water chemistry) are considered the most critical
by EPA in terms of the requirement for sampling by helicopter to meet the
specified holding times (USEPA 1984d,e). According to the NSWS Methods Manual
(Hillman et al. 1984), the expected range of extractable aluminum concentrations
is 5 to 1000 ug/L and the required analytical detection limit is 5 ug/L; precision
above 10 ug/L is to be 10% and below 10 ug/L is to be 20%. These expected
values are consistent with the results of Turk (1984a), who found dissolved
aluminum concentrations in three lakes of the Flat Tops Wilderness Area,
Colorado, to range from 10 to 45 ug/L, and with those of Nelson and Delwich
(1983), who found extractable aluminum concentrations in eight lakes in the
Oregon Cascades to range from less than 1 to 56 ug/L. Expected pH values range
from 3 to 8; specified precision for field measurements is +0.1 units and for field
base laboratory (described below) measurements +0.05 units. Expected
concentrations of DIC are 0.1 to 15 mg/L, the required detection limit is 0.05
mg/L, and precision at or above 0.5 mg/L is expected to be 10%.
A measure of hydrogen ion activity, pH is a variable that is often
determined in water-quality investigations. It has been found experimentally that
values of pH outside the near-neutral range may be toxic to a variety of aquatic
species and may also affect growth, distribution, etc. Importantly, though, pH has
also been related to a number of other factors, such as form and availability of
nutrients and trace elements (USEPA 1976). Indirectly, then, pH is related to the
ecological and chemical quality of surface waters. In the NSWS, pH would be used
not only as an indicator of acidification status of lakes but also as a QA check on
a number of other measured variables. For example, through a complex set of
chemical equations, pH is related to alkalinity and DIC; aberrant individual values
will be used by EPA investigators to identify analytical errors (Hillman 1984).
DIC consists of carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, and carbonate, the relative
proportions of which are a function of pH. These chemical species contribute to
alkalinity, which is a measure of the ability of water to absorb acidic inputs
without changing pH (Wetzel 1975). The DIC data collected in the NSWS will be
used to quantify the contribution of inorganic carbon to alkalinity and acidity and
to calculate total anion concentration and verify pH measurements, both of which
are QA measures (Hillman 1984). In particular, while pH and DIC can change with
time as discussed below, alkalinity (which Is a function of pH and DIC) will remain
constant in a sample; thus, if pH and DIC are measured simultaneously and
repeatedly, changes in calculated alkalinity may be attributed to analytical error
and the suspect pH or DIC values "flagged."
-------
16
In recent years, scientists have paid increasing attention to high levels of
aluminum as a probable explanation for observed toxic effects (such as loss of fish
populations) in acidified waters (e.g., Henriksen et al. 1984). A number of
researchers have observed that low-pH (i.e., acidic) waters are associated with
high concentrations of aluminum (Driscoll 1982; Henriksen et al. 1984; Campbell
et al. 1983). Monomeric aluminum (species such as Al^+ and the various aluminum
hydroxides) appears to be the species of concern from the standpoint of toxicity
to fish, rather than total aluminum (which also includes polymeric, colloidal,
extremely stable organic, and hydroxy organic complexes) (Barnes 1975, Driscoll
et al. 1980).
For all three parameters discussed above, it is desirable to analyze (or, in
the case of aluminum, extract) the samples as soon as possible because of their
possible degradation. DIC and pH can change with time as a result of
chemical/biological processes within the sample and as a result of the exchange of
CO2 with the atmosphere (Kramer 1984). Driscoll and Schafran (1984) quantified
these changes by analyzing bottled samples of lake water [samples not maintained
in isolation from the atmosphere or under refrigeration (C. Driscoll, Syracuse
University, New York, personal communication to R. Cushman, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Jan. 28, 1985)] repeatedly
over 15 d; their results are shown in Fig. 2.1-3. The direction and magnitude of
the changes varied among the lakes in a manner that would have been difficult to
predict. In the NSWS this degradation would be minimized by keeping the samples
isolated from the atmosphere and refrigerated, so degradation might not be
expected to be as great a problem as that found by Driscoll and Schafran. The
quantitative effect of sample degradation on pH and DIC data cannot be predicted
at this time.
Aluminum speciation (forms of the element) can change with time as
polynuclear species are formed from the monomeric species present at the time
of collection (potentially causing an underestimation of the true concentration of
monomeric aluminum) (Barnes 1975); aluminum concentrations and speciation may
also change as a result of changes in DIC, pH, and temperature, and as a result of
adsorbance onto container surfaces (Campbell et al. 1983, Norton and Henriksen
1983). Driscoll (1982) quantified these changes in bottled samples (as described
above for pH and DIC) (Fig. 2.1-4). Seip et al. (1984) also studied the effect of
storage (refrigerated; degree of isolation from the atmosphere not specified) on
measured concentrations of monomeric aluminum; they found only a 6% change in
two months. Because the NSWS samples would be isolated from the atmosphere
and refrigerated, changes in aluminum speciation or concentrations might not be
expected to vary as rapidly as was found by Driscoll. However, to minimize this
potential source of error, it is desirable to extract the sample as soon as possible
(specified by the NSWS protocol to be within 4 to 6 h and in practice completed
within 12 h).
The NSWS approach to minimizing the holding time between sampling and
analysis or extraction would be to process samples at field base laboratories on
the same day the samples are collected. The field base laboratories proposed
under this alternative (and used in the East in 1984) would be trailers outfitted
with equipment used for sample processing and measurement of several
water-quality variables (pH, DIC, turbidity, color); this equipment would include
laminar-flow hoods, water deionizers, refrigerator/freezers, filtering apparatus,
-------
17
ORNL-DWG 85-1395
O
E
3
«w
z
o
CO
cc
<
u
y
z
<
(5
CC
O
z
a
LU
>
o
tn
(A
160
X
a
RONDAXE
SQUASH
BIG MOOSE
i I
RONDAXE
WEST
BIG MOOSE
SQUASH
5 7 9
TIME (days)
11
13
15
Fig. 2.1-3. Effect of storage time on (a) dissolved inorganic carbon
(QIC) and (b) pH in samples of water from five Adirondack
Mountain (New York) lakes (Source; Driscoll and Schafran
1984).
-------
ORNL-DWG 85-1394
? 0.4
S|
O 2
2 2
< 0.3
0
1
2
3
4
TIME (days)
Fig. 2.1-4. Effect of storage time on monomeric aluminum in unprocessed samples of water
from Big Moose Lake, Adirondack Mountains, New York (Source: Driscoll 1902).
-------
19
pH meters, and carbon analyzers. The field base laboratories would each be
operated by four scientists. Samples would be processed within 12 h of
collection. The 4-L sample would be divided into aliquots, some of which would
be filtered (0.45-um pore size). Table 2.1-3 shows the various aliquots and the
analyses conducted on each of them. One filtered sample would be processed for
extractable aluminum; this procedure involves chelation with 8-hydroxyquinoline
acetate, pH adjustment, addition of and extraction into MIBK (methyl isobutyl
ketone), and pipetting of the MIBK (and aluminum) layer into a container for
eventual analysis. MIBK and 8-hydroxyquinoline are hazardous (ORNL 1981) and
thus should be used only under controlled conditions as a safety measure.
Aluminum chemistry in natural waters is very complex (Campbell et al. 1983),
but the MIBK extraction technique selects for the monomeric aluminum species
of concern (Driscoll 1984). Thus, the "extractable aluminum" technique proposed
here is an operationally defined "index" to monomeric aluminum. After
processing, the samples would be shipped by overnight mail to qualified
commercial analytical laboratories, the remainder of the analyses to be
completed within 28 d (holding times for individual parameters vary from 7 to 28
d).
The protocols used in the eastern portions of the NSWS in 1984 and
preferred by the EPA for the West in 1985, for reasons of data quality and
comparability, are:
Protocols for pH
(1) measured from the helicopter using a Hydrolab probe lowered in the water
to a known depth. This has the advantage of being a true in-situ sample, but
is expected to be of relatively poor precision because of the inherent
limitations of using portable equipment in the field. This measurement will
be used as a QA check on subsequent pH measurements;
(2) measured within 12 h of sampling at the field base laboratory in a sample
collected (at the lake) by syringe (unexposed to the atmosphere) from a
Van Dorn sampler. This is expected to be the most precise and accurate
measurement for characterizing lake chemistry, but sample degradation
could occur if the measurement were not made as soon as possible; and
(3) measured within seven days of sampling at the contract analytical
laboratory in a sample prepared at the field base laboratory, both (a) as
received, in a closed bottle and (b) after equilibration with a known gas
having a constant partial pressure of carbon dioxide.
Note that measurements (1) and (2) are in samples never exposed to the
atmosphere while (3b) is in a sample equilibrated with a standard gas and
may be expected to vary because of gaseous exchange with the gas.
Protocols for PIC
(1) measured within 12 h of sampling at the field base laboratory in syringe
sample, as in the pH measurement (2), thus providing the closest
representation of in-situ lake chemistry; and
-------
Table 2.1-3. Sample aliquots prepared by the field base laboratories (from Hillman et al. 1984).
A1iquot
1
(250 nuL)
2
(10 mL)
3
(250 mL)
4
(125 mL)
5
(500 mL)
6
(125 mL)
7
(125 mL)
Preservative
and
Description:
Filtered
pH < 2 with
HN03
MIBK
Extract
Store at
4°C
Filtered
Store at
4°C
Filtered
pH <2 with
H2S04
Store at
4°C
Unfi ltered
Store at
4°C
Unfiltered
pH < 2 with
H2S04
Store at 4°C
Unfiltered
pH <2 with
HNO3
Parameters:
Ca
Extractable-
A1
ci-
DOC
pH
Total P
Total Al
Mg
F-
NH4 +
acidity
K
S04 2-
alkalinity
Na
N03 "
conductivity
Mn
Si02
DIC
Fe
-------
21
(2) measured within seven days of sampling at the contract analytical
laboratory, both (a) in a closed bottle and (b) equilibrated, as with pH
measurement (3b).
As with pH, the field base laboratory determination is in a sample isolated
from the atmosphere, while the contract analytical laboratory
determinations are in bottled samples and samples exposed to a standard gas
. At both the field base laboratory and the analytical laboratory, pH and
DIC must be measured at the same time to allow the DIC determinations to
serve as a quality check on the pH data.
Protocols for extractable aluminum
One aliquot from the 4-L sample is filtered and extracted into MIBK at the
field base laboratory to fix the aluminum, which is then analyzed at the
contract analytical laboratory.
A preliminary analysis of some of the eastern survey data (3. Eilers, EPA,
Corvallis, Oregon, personal communication to D. Landers, EPA, Corvailis, Oregon,
Jan. 24, 1985) showed that differences of greater than 0.5 mg/L of DIC could
occur between field base laboratory and analytical laboratory determinations, and
differences of greater than 0.5 pH units could occur between field and field base
laboratory determinations. This supports the NSWS concern over ensuring the
quality of the pH and DIC data and measuring these variables as quickly and
accurately as possible.
The NSWS would involve the measurement of four types of samples: routine
samples are the single samples ordinarily taken from each lake; field blanks
consist of Type 1 (deionized water) brought to the field and processed in the
sampling gear, to test for possible contamination of samples; duplicate samples
are second samples of lake water, to test for variability introduced by sampling
and analytical procedures; and audit samples are solutions prepared to contain
known concentrations of chemical constituents, to test for inaccuracies
introduced during sample processing (filtering, acidification, aliquot preparation)
and analysis. These various samples are important in quality control. Sampling
teams would prepare field blanks and take duplicate samples daily. At least one
onsite audit of samplers and field base laboratories would be conducted near the
beginning of the survey. Field base laboratories would be required to process
audit samples daily. Analytical laboratories would receive a variety of blind audit
samples and would be required to implement calibration checks, reagent checks,
etc., regularly. All personnel would receive training in these protocols, to ensure
uniform procedures and to minimize errors (Sect. 2.1.5).
2.1.4 Quality Assurance
Statistical support has been an integral part of the scientific design of the
NSWS and Data Quality Objectives (DOQ) were developed early in the design
process to meet the requirements of the survey and the Agency. The quality
assurance and quality control (QA/QC) program for the survey was then explicitly
formulated to support the DOQ. The decisions that will be based on the data from
the NSWS will likely influence national policy with regard to control strategies for
acidic deposition. These decisions, and especially the data that support them.
-------
22
must be able to withstand scientific and legal challenge. Consequently, the
Agency has taken the necessary steps to ensure that the data quality is
impeccable and that any conclusions based on the data are statistically valid.
Approach
The QA approach that has been developed for the NSWS as a whole and that
would be used in the survey of western wilderness area lakes involves the
following steps to ensure that data of known quality are provided:
1. Standardization of sampling and analytical methods and
procedures.
2. Simplification of the field operations as much as practical.
3. Thorough training of all personnel involved.
4. Use of QA/QC samples and procedures to allow verification of
the data.
5. Field and laboratory audits to ensure that all activities are
properly implemented and performed.
6. Daily QA contact with the field and laboratory activities to
ensure that they are properly performed and that any problems
are identified and resolved.
7. Thorough evaluation of the reported data and verification of
data quality.
All of these steps must be performed to ensure that data of known quality are
provided to support the objectives of the NSWS.
Standardization
The best available sampling and analytical methods for low-ionic-strength
waters were selected for the NSWS. These methods were standardized (i.e,
carefully detailed and documented) to ensure that all field and laboratory
activities could provide accurate, precise, and comparable data. Comparability of
data across sampling teams, field base stations, analytical laboratories, and
especially across regions is critical in answering questions and proposing
environmental controls that have national and international impacts.
Simplification
The more complicated that the logistics of a monitoring activity become,
the more difficult it is to obtain comparable data of adequate quality. The NSWS
lake survey is large in scope and, as a result, requires complicated logistics.
Every effort has been made to simplify the logistics and reduce the number of
people and steps involved in collecting, processing, and analyzing the samples.
-------
23
Training
All personnel involved in the field collection and processing of samples must
be qualified and thoroughly trained to ensure that all activities are performed in
the same manner and result in data that can be compared across all activities.
The more personnel Involved in these activities, the higher the probability that
problems would arise that result in data that are not comparable or are of
unacceptable quality. Every effort has been made to keep the number of
personnel involved in sample collection and processing to the minimum required.
Additional personnel may affect the ability of the survey to provide comparable
and acceptable data.
QA/QC Samples and Criteria
The QA/QC program relies on holding time and detection limit criteria and
on the use of blanks, duplicates, audit samples, and QA check samples to identify
QA/QC problems and to verify data quality.
The frequency of use and the application of these QA/QC samples are as
follows:
Blanks. Field blanks are used to identify any contamination in the sampling
and analysis process. The QA approach was designed to avoid significant
contamination; maximum parameter concentrations in the blanks less than 10
percent of the lowest concentrations that might be a decision point for data
interpretation. The goal is to keep contamination below 10 percent of the lowest
concentration expected for each parameter in the samples to be collected.
Significant effort has gone into designing the field operation to avoid sample
contamination to verify that the approach used does avoid contamination. Any
changes in the sampling approach could increase sample contamination. The
number of blanks has been limited to one per sampling team per day. This allows
the QA staff to establish an estimated range of background contamination for
each sample but does not allow for background subtraction to correct for blank
contamination. This approach is acceptable for the current survey design, since
the sampling and analysis scheme has minimized sample contamination to a level
where it should not have a significant impact on the data.
Duplicates. Field duplicates are collected at a rate of one duplicate per
field base station per day. The field duplicates are used to estimate overall
precision of the sampling and analytical process.
Criteria. Holding times and detection limits are important criteria for
maintaining confidence in the data, especially at the low concentrations of
interest to the survey. Detection limits are an analytical laboratory problem, but
they are meaningless if the samples are contaminated during the sampling
process. Holding times were established based on the literature or on the best
scientific judgment about parameter stability in the lake samples.
2.1.5 Logistics
Under this alternative, the Phase I survey would involve the use of
helicopters flying out of five base stations, tentatively located at airports in
-------
24
Yakima, Washington; Missoula, Montana; Bozeman, Montana; Boulder, Colorado;
and Reno, Nevada. Field base laboratories would be located at each of these base
stations, and survey operations would be directed from them as well.
Two helicopters would operate out of each base station. The type of
helicopter that would be used has not yet been determined, but one capable of
high-altitude work would be needed in most areas. Limiting factors would be the
number of samples that can be collected by each helicopter sampling crew, the
number of samples each field base laboratory could handle in a day, and the
number of samples the analytical laboratories could process. Figure 2.1-1 shows
activities involved in sampling under this alternative.
Up to six lakes could be sampled each day by one helicopter and its crew. A
preliminary review of information on the time lakes undergo fall mixing would
determine the schedule and location of sampling. A sampling window from early
September to mid October appears to be most likely. High-altitude lakes would
be sampled as early in the project as possible, to avoid bad weather and freeze-up
of the lakes. Approximately 10 to 30 min (the average was 20 min during the
eastern survey) would be spent on each lake.
Each helicopter would carry three people, sampling equipment, and survival
equipment in case of accidents. The crew would consist of the pilot and a
sampling crew of two technicians. Lakes located at distances greater than within
a 100-mile radius of the base station would be sampled from a remote station
located at a closer airport, to reduce flight distances. In addition, fuel trucks,
along with a helicopter mechanic, would be driven to refueling sites closer to
sampling areas, to reduce the number of flights to the base station.
Survey crews and field base laboratory staff would undergo an intensive
training period before the survey begins, to ensure that all personnel understand
and have experience with the sampling and analytical equipment (such training
was conducted for personnel involved in the eastern survey). There is a major
effort to standardize sampling procedures and techniques during this training, to
reduce variability due to differences in sampling and analytical operations. The
number of survey crews would be kept to a minimum as well, to keep this type of
variability small. Standard data sheets for use in the field and in laboratories
would be used to ensure a consistency in observations made. Training in survival
techniques and safety procedures for working in and from a helicopter would also
be included.
Flights would be made during daylight hours only, and teams would be
required to return to the field base stations two hours before sunset so that if
they did not arrive as scheduled, search and rescue operations could be initiated
during daylight hours. Flying in poor weather conditions would be avoided, and a
60% downtime factor (i.e., helicopters would not be able to fly because of
weather, mechanical problems, etc., 60% of the time) for inclement weather and
helicopter maintenance would be allocated in the planning. The field base
coordinator would be responsible for making arrangements with the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Services or other organizations to undertake
search and rescue activities should the need arise. In the eastern survey this
approach was an effective means of tracking daily progress of the helicopters.
-------
25
2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (USE OF GROUND ACCESS ONLY)
Alternative 2 would involve the use of horses to gain access to as many of
the 498 lakes within wilderness areas and national parks as possible. No
helicopters would be used within wilderness area boundaries. Preliminary
discussions with FS personnel familiar with wilderness areas in the West indicate
that three categories of access situations would exist: (1) lakes which are
inaccessible via horseback because no trails that could be used by horses are
present; (2) lakes which are sufficiently distant from a wilderness area boundary
or sufficiently difficult to reach that proposed NSWS protocols could not be met;
and (3) lakes from which samples could be transported by horse to the wilderness
area boundary and then by helicopter to field base laboratories quickly enough to
meet NSWS protocols. A maximum transport time of eight hours from the lake to
the field base laboratory would have to be met to satisfy NSWS protocols. The
exact number of lakes in each category is unknown, but a preliminary evaluation
of five wilderness areas (Sect. 4.2.7) suggests that significant numbers of lakes
would occur in categories 1 and 2.
Because it is clear that NSWS protocols for short holding times could not be
met for all lakes sampled under this alternative, the NSWS management team
would require that protocols be modified for all samples collected within
wilderness areas so that filtering and sample preparation would be done at the site
of collection (Sect. 2.2.3). Samples would then be transported to the field base
laboratory for measurements of DIC and pH of the syringe sample before
shipment to the analytical laboratory.
Under this alternative, samples would be collected from a small rubber
boat. In addition to the sampling crew of two people, a wrangler to manage the
pack animals and one or two riders to transport samples out of the wilderness
areas would be required. Helicopters would be used outside the wilderness areas
to transport samples to the field base laboratory.
2.2.1 Sampling Design
Under this alternative, randomly selected lakes would be used as described
for Alternative 1 (Sect. 2.1.1). Some of the selected lakes would be inaccessible
by horseback because trails are not present, and at least in some strata, fewer
samples could actually be collected.
2.2.2 Sampling Methods
Under this alternative, the lakes would be sampled from an inflatable boat,
as was done in the Western Pilot Survey (USEPA 1984d). It would be more
difficult to gather all the information that could be obtained using a helicopter, as
described in Sect. 2.1 (e.g., low-elevation aerial photographs of the sampled
lakes), and it would not be as easy to estimate the deepest portion of the lakes.
However, some of this information might be gathered by taking aerial photographs
from fixed-wing aircraft flying above 3000 ft. As in Sect. 2.1.2, a Hydrolab unit
would be used to record data on temperature, pH, and conductivity; Secchi disk
transparency would be measured; and a Van Dorn sampler would be used to take
samples for chemical analysis.
-------
26
2.2.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures
Meeting the holding-time constraints described in Sect. 2.1.3 is probable for
some selected lakes and unlikely or impossible for others (Sect. 4.2.7). In the case
of lakes from which samples could not be delivered to the field base laboratory
within the required time, only a change in methods or deletion of measurements
for one or more chemical variables would allow retention of those lakes in the
sampled population. To maximize comparability of data, under this alternative
the NSWS protocols described in Sect. 2.1.3 would be changed to provide a single
methodology that could be applied to all wilderness area lakes. The analyses for
extractable aluminum, pH, and DIC have been cited by the EPA as being most
critical in terms of sample holding time, and thus in terms of the need for
helicopter access (USEPA 1984d,e). This section, therefore, will focus on
alternatives to those three analyses.
The NSWS method for extracting aluminum under this alternative would be
changed to consist of filtering and extracting the sample at the lake, using
portable equipment (battery-powered pH meters and hand- or battery-powered
pumps) and reagents, rather than in the field base laboratory.
Under this alternative, the proposed pH methods would be changed by
increasing the holding time before the field base laboratory measurement.
Measurement of pH at the lake, without a DIC measurement on the same sample,
would not allow the QA/QC check on data quality of the pH measurement;
therefore, under this alternative, it would still be important to return the syringe
samples to the field base laboratory for simultaneous determination of pH and
DIC. Thus, the syringe samples would be brought to the field base laboratory as
soon as possible, but in most cases the holding time would exceed 12 h.
Neither Standard Methods (APHA, AWWA, and WPCF 1980) nor Methods for
Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA 1983) gives guidance on analyzing
DIC. The instrumentation for measuring DIC (a carbon analyzer that is bulky and
requires a stable source of electricity) is not portable; thus, no measurements are
possible until the sample is brought to the field base laboratory. The change in
NSWS protocol required under this alternative, similar to that described above for
pH, would consist of transporting the syringe samples to the field base laboratory
as soon as possible for DIC determination, but in most cases the holding time
would exceed 12 h.
In addition to the three variables discussed in this summary, it is
recommended that samples for other NSWS variables (dissolved metals, for
example) be either analyzed or preserved as soon as possible after sampling
(USEPA 1983). Thus, under Alternative 2, the NSWS protocol would be further
changed to require that all sample preparation (filtering, acidification, separation
of aliquots) be done in the field using portable equipment rather than in the field
base laboratory, as is currently called for. This alternative would therefore result
in changes in virtually all the protocols for chemical analysis.
2.2.4 Quality Assurance
The general QA/QC approach described for Alternative I (Sect. 2.1.4) would
be used to the extent possible. Approximately three times the number of
-------
27
samples (routine, blank, and duplicate) would be required for lakes reached by
horseback compared with the QA/QC procedure described in Sects. 2.1.3 and
2.1.A. That is, whereas under Alternative 1 each helicopter sampling crew returns
with one duplicate lake sample and one blank each day while sampling several
lakes, a horseback sampling crew would return with one duplicate lake sample and
blank associated with each routine lake sample. Additionally, because all sample
filtration, acidification, and aliquot preparation would be done in the field under
this alternative (as discussed below), the sampling crew would also be required to
process a lab audit sample for each lake sampled (processed daily at the field base
laboratories under Alternative 1). A field study would be needed to determine if
data collected via horseback vs helicopter were different, to assess comparability
with eastern survey data already collected.
2.2.5 Logistics
A pilot study conducted in western wilderness areas in the fall of 1984
(USEPA 1984f), provides a basis for estimating the logistic requirements of this
alternative. Field teams for sampling lakes under Alternative 2 would be
composed of a sampling crew of two, a wrangler/guide and at least one rider to
transport samples. At least four pack horses would be needed to carry the
sampling equipment and camping gear. In the pilot study, it took six teams of
three people and two horses three weeks to sample 38 of the 50 lakes planned for
sampling.
Based on the approach used in the pilot study, more than 240 people (60 field
teams) and 480 horses (240 pack horses and 240 riding horses) would be needed to
sample the 498 lakes in wilderness areas and national parks. Each of the field
teams would need a complete set of sampling equipment, including a Hydrolab,
Van Dorn sampler, pH meter, rubber boat, and many other items. In addition to
sampling equipment, the field teams would need to carry camping equipment,
food, survival gear, and feed and grain for the horses. More pack animals would
probably be required to carry extra supplies for field teams operating in a single
wilderness area for more than a few days.
Samples would be packed out each day so that a holding time of no more
than 12 h could be met. The samples would need to be delivered to field base
laboratories within 8 h to allow for processing time, which means that travel time
from the lake to the helicopter landing site should be no more than 7 h (allowing
1 h for flight time to the field base station). Field crews would require training to
ensure that sampling protocols and safety considerations (e.g., sampling from
rubber boats) were met.
2.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 (COMBINED USE OF HELICOPTERS AND GROUND
ACCESS)
Alternative 3 would involve the use of both helicopters and horses to gain
access to lakes in wilderness areas and national parks. To determine the mix of
access methods that would be needed, detailed planning between EPA and the FS
or NPS would be required. Under this alternative, the objective would be to meet
NSWS protocols as closely as possible. Horses would be used to gain access to
lakes from which samples could be transported within 8 h to the field base
laboratory. All other lakes would be sampled via helicopter.
-------
28
For lakes which would be reached via helicopter, sampling crews and
protocols would be identical to those described for Alternative 1 (Sect. 2.1), while
for lakes reached by horse, sample collection and transportation would be similar
to that described for Alternative 2 (Sect. 2.2). Sample protocols would not be
modified for lakes reached by horse as in Alternative 2, but rather the samples
would be transported to the field base laboratory for initial measurements and
sample preparation.
2.3.1 Sampling Design
Under this alternative, randomly selected lakes would be sampled as
described for the previous alternatives. Because both horses and helicopters
would be used, most lakes selected could probably be sampled.
2.3.2 Sampling Methods
Under this alternative, sampling methods would be as described in
Sect. 2.2.2 for those lakes that would be reached via horse and as described in
Sect. 2.1.2 for those lakes that would be sampled only via helicopter. The exact
mix of sampling methods would, of course, depend on the exact mix of access
methods. Only those lakes from which samples could be delivered to the field
base laboratory within the holding time used elsewhere in the NSWS (i.e., all
samples processed within 12 h of sampling) would actually be sampled via
horseback. Some information that could be gathered via helicopter but not via
horseback (e.g., low-elevation aerial photographs of the sampled lakes) would
subsequently not be available for some fraction of the lakes.
Because the comparability of the data collected under this alternative with
that collected in the rest of the survey would be uncertain, the NSWS
management team would require that 25 lakes outside wilderness areas be
sampled both by helicopter access and by horse access for comparison.
2.3.3 Chemical Measurements and Analytical Procedures
Chemical measurements and analytical procedures that would be used under
this alternative are described in Sect. 2.1.3.
2.3.4 Quality Assurance
The general QA/QC procedures described for Alternative I (Sect. 2.1.4)
would be followed as closely as possible. In addition, a QA study would be needed
to evaluate differences in data quality between data collected via horseback vs
via helicopter to determine if the data could be compared to the eastern survey
data.
2.3.5 Logistics
Detailed plans for undertaking this alternative have not been made.
Logistical considerations would, however, include elements of both Alternatives \
and 2 (Sects. 2.1.5 and 2.2.5). Field base laboratories and helicopter crews similar
to those described for Alternative 1 would be used. Samples from lakes
-------
29
that are reached via horses would be transported to the field base laboratory each
day so that short holding time measurements and sample preparation could be
performed.
Helicopters would be used to meet ground crews and, in at least some cases,
to pick up samples so that they could be rapidly transported to the field base
laboratories. Detailed planning and communication would be necessary to
coordinate ground and air operations.
2.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 (NOT SAMPLING IN WILDERNESS AREAS)
Alternative 4 (the No Action Alternative) would involve not sampling any
lakes within wilderness areas. Helicopters would be used to sample lakes outside
the wilderness areas in the same manner that they would be sampled in
Alternative I.
Under this alternative, the sampling universe would need to be redefined to
exclude wilderness areas, and a new, randomly selected set of lakes would be
sampled. Except for the exclusion of wilderness areas, the selection process
would be the same as that described for Alternative I (Sect. 2.1.1). Data from
such sampling would not be applicable, however, to wilderness areas (Sect. 4.4.6).
2.5 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES
This section compares the four alternatives for the major issues addressed in
Sect. 4 of the EA. Tables S-l and S-2 in the Summary and Conclusions section
summarize this comparison.
The most important potential impacts to wilderness values are considered in
terms of effects on wilderness character, solitude, and use. Long-term
preservation of wilderness character would best be promoted by Alternative I
because high-quality data on all wilderness areas would be collected and could be
used in developing management strategies that would best protect these areas
from the effects of acidic deposition. Alternatives 2 and 3 would also promote
preservation of wilderness character, but the data base would probably be less
complete, the quality of the data could well be lower, and management policies
would be less firmly based. Adoption of Alternative 4 would mean that no survey
data would be collected for either the wilderness areas or the whole western
region.
Alternative I involves a one-time request for motorized access which is
unlikely to serve as a precedent for granting other requests. Few, if any, future
requests would meet the following unique research and administrative objectives
and the methodolgical constraints of the NSWS survey: the wide-spread
geographic scope of possible effects and sources, the lack of available data,
potentially great ecological harm, unique monitoring and quality control
procedures, and high policy and legislative priority.
-------
30
Alternative I would have the greatest likelihood of disrupting wilderness
solitude because the presence of aircraft would not be in keeping with this
wilderness value. Alternative 3 would have a lower impact because fewer flights
would take place within wilderness areas. Alternative 2 would have some effect
on solitude because approximately 240 people and 480 horses would spend several
weeks in wilderness areas during the survey. Alternative 4 would have no effect
on wilderness solitude because no sampling would occur within the boundaries.
None of the alternatives considered is expected to have major impacts on
hunters. Under Alternatives 1 and 3, the presence of helicopters in big game
areas would present the most probable chance of disturbance. Any disturbance
that occurred would most likely affect only individual or small groups of animals
and then only by temporarily startling them. Alternative 2 would increase the
chance of encounters with hunters and game because more people would be in the
wilderness areas, but there is low probability that any major disturbance would
occur.
None of the alternatives would be expected to create anything but minor
impacts on plants and animals in the wilderness areas. Chemical spills, fires, or
direct contact with species are equally apt to occur under all the alternatives,
except 4.
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 all involve safety considerations. Historical data on
helicopter accidents indicate that there is a chance of about 12 accidents per
100,000 flight hours for the types of flying most closely associated with lake
sampling. No estimates of fatal or serious injury accidents are available for using
horses, but it is assumed that the rate would be somewhat lower. Because the use
of horses would involve a greater number of people who would be working under
possible extreme conditions of weather and topography, it is believed that human
safety considerations for Alternatives 2 and 3 are similar to those for
Alternative 1.
The four alternatives differ considerably in terms of consequences to survey
objectives. As discussed above, the survey has been designed to collect the
highest quality information possible on sensitivity of lakes to acidic deposition so
that a national assessment can be made of where the most sensitive receptors are
and what emission control strategies should be evaluated to prevent further
environmental degradation. Adoption of Alternative 1 would mean that the
survey objectives would be met; the data would be of known quality, would be
comparable to data gathered for the other regions of the country, and would be
available for most of the lakes selected for sampling.
Alternative 2 would generate data that would be of uncertain quality and
would be more difficult to compare to data collected for other regions. The risk
of contamination of samples while they are being processed in the field is an
important concern. In addition, the numbers of people involved in sampling will
be much greater and the chance of introducing variations in sampling technique
and, therefore potential error, is greatly increased. Problems with the use and
calibration of 60 Hydrolabs and pH meters in the field could also introduce a
substantial amount of error. It is likely that fewer lakes could be sampled under
this alternative, and the data base would, therefore, be less complete than for
Alternative 1.
-------
31
Alternative 3 could have similar problems in terms of data quality to
Alternative 2, but contamination problems would be less by not processing the
samples in the field. The completeness of the data set for Alternative 3 should be
comparable to that for Alternative 1 unless weather would limit the use of horses
as it did in the western pilot study, but uncertainties about data quality would s:ill
be high.
Alternative 4 would provide no data for wilderness areas so that the NSWS
data base would be of little use in resource management. In addition, if wilderness
area data could not be obtained, there would be considerable question about the
value of the national survey because a large proportion of the most sensitive lakes
would not have been sampled. The NSWS management team would not conduct
the survey in the West if this alternative were selected.
The four alternatives differ markedly in terms of logistical considerations.
The use of helicopters for the survey was highly successful during the eastern and
midwestern portions of the NSWS. Use of horses under Alternative 2 would
involve training and equipping a large number of sampling crews (60 teams).
There is considerable doubt that sufficient sampling equipment (e.g., Hydrolabs
and Van Dorn samplers) would be available. Adoption of this Alternative would
probably result in delaying the survey at least one year so that equipment could be
obtained. Such a delay would mean that data would not be available on schedule
for the national assessment of acidic deposition mandated by Congress for 1987.
In addition, there is little flexibility under this alternative to deal with adverse
weather conditions as were experienced during the western pilot study.
Alternative 3 presents somewhat smaller logistical problems because fewer people
would be involved in sampling via horseback and because there could be greater
flexibility if trails were blocked by snowstorms, assuming lakes could then be
sampled via helicopter. Neither Alternatives 2 nor 3 would reduce the use of
helicopters to any great extent because they would be needed for sampling outside
the wilderness areas and for transporting samples to the field base laboratories.
Both alternatives would therefore result in significantly greater costs because the
use of horses and extra sampling crews would be in addition to the costs required
for using only helicopters for all lakes.
The comparison of alternatives indicates that adoption of the EPA proposed
alternative to use helicopters to sample lakes in wilderness areas would involve
only temporary disruption of wilderness values, would have limited and at least
partially mitigatable impacts on hunting, and would possibly have no greater
chance of fatal or serious injury accidents than other alternatives considered. No
irretrievable or irreversible commitment of resources would occur. The
temporary and largely mitigatable impacts are not considered to be "significant
impacts to the "human environment" under the National Environmental Policy Act
and are offset by the long-term advantages of obtaining high quality data on
sensitivity of lakes to acidic deposition. The data obtained would be of value in
providing (1) a meaningful framework for making national and regional
assessments and for developing strategies to control emission sources, and (2) a
data base useful for evaluating threats to long-term goals of protecting
wilderness areas in the West. Therefore, EPA considers Alternative 1 to be the
preferred alternative.
-------
32
3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
3.1 WILDERNESS VALUES, USES, AND PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
Because compatibility with wilderness values is a primary management
concern of the FS and other land managers responsible for wilderness areas (e.g.,
NPS, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management) in evaluating
effects of alternatives in this analysis, the following section discusses the values,
uses, and protection requirements associated with these areas. The FS wilderness
requirements are emphasized because the large majority of the affected
wilderness areas are under their jurisdiction. It is assumed that other land
management agencies have similar requirements and concerns.
3.1.1 Wilderness Values
In their efforts to preserve wilderness in this country, its early proponents,
as well as contemporary ones, have established three general, consistent
wilderness themes, or values (Hendee et al. 1978). While wilderness is certainly
slightly different in meaning to each individual, these recurring values strike a
common ground and offer a background understanding for management.
Experiential. The experience of wilderness, per se, is a focus of many of the
important works by American philosophers and naturalists. These writings (as
well as poetry, paintings, and photographs) emphasize nature appreciation,
education, freedom, solitude, and simplicity as well as spiritual, aesthetic, and
mystical dimensions of the wilderness experience (Hendee et al. 1978). Authors
such as Muir, Emerson, and Thoreau and naturalists such as Bob Marshall, Aldo
Leopold, Wallace Stegner, and Sigurd Olson are frequently mentioned in this
respect.
Mental and Moral Restoration. While there may be different kinds as well
as levels of psychological responses to wilderness, it long has had a recognized
value as a location for renewal of mind and spirit. This rejuvenation is more than
might occur from mere withdrawal or escape from urban pressures. What makes
the wilderness experience unique is the opportunity it affords for contemplation
and self-insight. There is a dominance of the natural, a relative absence of
civilized resources for coping with nature, and a relative absence of demands on
ones behavior that are artificially generated or human imposed (Kaplan and Talbot
1983). The tranquility, peace, and silence to be found in the wilderness are
necessary to create a state in which contemplation is possible, and contemplation
may be necessary for the achievement and maintenance of the sense of
integration and wholeness with a larger universe.
Scientific. Because of its generally undisturbed setting, wilderness offers an
outstanding yardstick for measuring changes in the rest of the developed world.
As a source for studying the interactions of organisms, wilderness areas are
generally large enough to offer ecological insights unattainable elsewhere.
George Perkins Marsh, Leopold, Muir, and Marshall each identified the unique
laboratory that wilderness is. Wilderness areas also serve as laboratories for
behavioral scientists concerned with how individuals relate to one another, how
they cope in the face of stress and challenge, and how behavior is modified in
natural environments (Hendee et al. 1978).
-------
33
3.1.2 Wilderness Uses
Discussion of the utility of wilderness makes the assumption that wilderness
must have uses. To those who do not see the wilderness world
anthropocentrically, the concept of wilderness as a resource in and of itself makes
such a discussion as absurd as discussing the use of happiness (Godfrey-Smith
1979). Many wilderness proponents, both historic and contemporary, believe that
wilderness is an end in itself — that it is an idea as well as a place having
geography, topography, and geological structure; that its plant and animal life and
the action of its streams, lakes, skies, and climate are sufficient to place it and
its processes on each of our own mental maps of the universe (Ulph 1982).
Consistent with this perspective, Sect. 4(a) of the Wilderness Act established the
primary purpose, or use, of the wilderness areas as being the preservation of their
wilderness character, a purpose supplemental to the purposes of the national
parks, forests, and wildlife refuges.
Having said this, it is also evident that the human benefit of using
wilderness is an implicit part of the Wilderness Act itself, and federal resources
have been allocated to serve such purposes for years. The FS recreation manual
(USDA undated) for managing wilderness areas states that the Forest Service
is to administer wilderness for such other purposes for which it may
have been established as also to preserve its wilderness character, or
wilderness resource. It is to be devoted to the public purposes of
recreational, scenic, scientific, educational, conservation, and
historical use. (2320.2)
Wilderness uses range from (1) wilderness-dependent uses (e.g., some
spectacular hiking and camping opportunities in areas of remarkable solitude;
scientific observation; some fishing and hunting in pristine environments; and
spiritual rejuvenation) to (2) wilderness-associated uses (e.g., short hiking,
picnicking, and camping opportunities; fishing; hunting; and observation of nature
and scenery) to (3) wilderness-independent uses (e.g., mining, grazing of
livestock, and fishing for stocked fish).
3.1.3 Wilderness Protection
The Nature of Managing Wilderness. Wilderness protection means
wilderness management, an apparent contradiction in terms because
management suggests control and manipulation. Roderick Nash (1978)
characterizes the situation well:
The only wilderness true to the etymological roots of the word is that
which man does not influence in any way whatsoever. The more man
learns about wilderness, the more he visits it, maps it, writes about it
— the less wild it becomes. ...
The implications of this for wilderness management are not hard to
understand. When a society, usually acting through a government
agency, designates a wilderness, it cannot be wilderness in the most
complete and traditional sense. Management of any kind is a further
compromise of a region's wildness. Even maps, trails, and signs are a
-------
34
civilizing influence — steps toward ordering the environment in man's
interest, toward lessening the amount of the unknown. The association
of rangers, wardens, and search-and-rescue teams with a given area
obviously detracts from its wildness. More subtle, but equally
meaningful in this regard, are sophisticated management techniques.
The notion of carrying capacity, use permits, and quotas, regulations
on behavior, prescribed fire, and fire control gradually erode the
"wild" from "wilderness." It is virtually lost when recreation demand
makes it necessary to secure permits a year in advance and, at the
peril of arrest and fine, to maintain a rigid back-country travel
itinerary so other parties, following a day behind, have places to
camp. When these requirements exist..., then wilderness is
transformed into an open-air motel complete with registration and
checkout times.
The intellectual dilemma posed by a managed wilderness is
compounded by the fact that, in the last analysis, wilderness is a state
of mind. Like beauty, it is defined by human perception. This can
mean that, for some individuals, regulations for management will not
be a distracting presence. But for others, just the knowledge that they
visit an area by the grace of, and under conditions established by,
civilization is devastating to a wilderness experience. It is ironic that
the success of management in protecting the wilderness experience
declines in proportion to its effectiveness. In the sense discussed here,
the best managed wildernesses are the least wild.
The real irony, then, is that only by deliberately managing wilderness to
minimize man's influence can we, through democratic processes, have any land
preserved as what we call "wilderness."
There are two philosophical poles regarding wilderness management (Hendee
et al. 1978). The first, an anthropocentric position, is grounded in the notion that
providing for man's "use and enjoyment" (Wilderness Act, Sect. 2) of the
wilderness should have precedence over other values. The opposing view, a
biocentric position, places its emphasis on the maintenance of the natural systems
at the expense of recreational and other human uses if necessary. Because all
wilderness values depend on the wilderness's naturalness, this position is generally
favored (with considerable latitude) under recent wilderness management by the
FS. Hendee et al. (1978) summarize that wilderness management is
... essentially the management of human use and influence to preserve
naturalness and solitude.... Managers should not mold nature to suit
people. Rather, they should manage human use and influence so that
natural processes are not altered. Managers should do only what is
necessary to meet wilderness objectives, and use only the minimum
tools, force, and regulation required to achieve those objectives.
-------
35
The FS manual on recreation management in wilderness areas (USDA
undated) states the following (Sect. 2320):
Management of land as wilderness must be to ensure that, in every
case, wilderness values are dominant, above compromise, and
enduring. Management postures must be consistent over time and
space, legally and administratively unimpeachable, and totally within
the concept and philosophy of the intent of retaining an enduring
resource of wilderness unimpaired for present and future use and
enjoyment as wilderness.
As FS policy, the manual further states (Sect. 2320.3)
Each wilderness will be managed and all resources will be administered
to promote, and perpetuate, its wilderness character and values
including, but not limited to, its values for scientific study, solitude,
physical and mental challenge and stimulation, inspiration, spiritual
refreshment, and primitive recreation opportunities.
Biological Research. The NSWS survey falls clearly within the scope of the
desired use of wilderness areas as scientific study areas. The status of baseline
data collection in wilderness areas is "woefully inadequate" according to Jerry F.
Franklin, Principal Plant Ecologist, U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest
and Range Experiment Station, Corvallis, Oregon (Franklin 1978). He states that
in most areas it is missing, and that where work has been done, it is generally not
part of a comprehensive plan. He states that
Documentation is poor. Most work is focused on "sores" which are
immediate management problem areas; such sites obviously have high
priority but perpetuate a tendency to lose perspective on monitoring
and baseline data needs over the wilderness as a whole.
Similar concerns have also been voiced by Drabelle (1984).
System or System to Protect a System. One argument raised during scoping
of this EA was that because some of the designated lakes to be sampled are not in
wilderness areas currently perceived as being threatened by acidic deposition, the
use of helicopters should not be justified because the Wilderness Act gives
administrative authority to the FS to allow exceptions such as the helicopters only
when the wilderness character of a given wilderness is threatened. The following
brief discussion of the relevant portion of the Wilderness Act underscores this
point (The Wilderness Society 1984):
The Wilderness Act, in Sect. 4(c), specified that management
activities which could have negative impacts on wilderness should only
be undertaken "...as necessary to meet minimum requirements for the
administration of the area for the purpose of this Act...." The
fundamental guiding principle for administrative activities should be
whether, given the conditions specific to that site, the action is
necessary to protect physical and biological resources or enhance
wilderness attributes of naturalness and solitude.... Motorized access
or equipment should only be used In emergency situations where
necessary to protect visitor health or safety or the wilderness resource.
-------
36
In other words, it has been argued that the Wilderness Act allows aircraft
landings only when necessary for the protection of a particular wilderness, not
when the landings are necessary for the protection of the wilderness system as a
whole. This argument is not supported by the regulations of the Department of
Agriculture, which provides to the Chief, Forest Service, broad discretion to
"prescribe conditions under which ... aircraft ... may be used, transported, or
installed by the Forest Service and its agents and by other Federal, State, or
county agencies or their agents, to meet the minimum requirements for
authorized activities to protect and administer the Wilderness and its resources."
Wilderness Dependency. To ensure optimum use of wilderness resources, the
FS has adopted a policy of making decisions on conflicting uses based on the
principle of dependency, the favoring of uses which are most dependent on
primeval wilderness conditions (Hendee et al. 1978). Deciding which uses are
most wilderness-dependent can be difficult where a specific activity may not
generally be wilderness- dependent but a particular style or form in which it is
pursued may be. Hunting for wilderness-dependent game is a clear case, but
hunting for only wilderness-associated game — although in a natural setting away
from roads and other signs of civilization — is an issue that is less clear. Anglers
often cite the desire to fish in remote, difficult-to-reach lakes where one is
unlikely to meet others as a reason for seeking wilderness opportunities.
Elsewhere in this document (Sects. 2.1.1, 2.2.1, 2.3.1, 2.4, and 4.4.6) the
wilderness dependency of the proposed action and the alternatives are discussed.
The administrative basis for proposing to conduct studies such as the NSWS within
wilderness areas resides in Sect. 2(c) and Sect. 4(b) of the Wilderness Act and in
the FS recreation manual (USDA undated, Sect. 2323.9).
Authorization for Aircraft Use. Under Sect. 4(c) of the Wilderness Act, FS
policy (USDA, undated) states that aircraft (Sect. 2320.3)
may be authorized for use by other Federal agencies, officers,
employees, agencies or agents of State and county governments when
necessary to meet minimum requirements for protection and
administration of the area to meet the purposes of the act, for bona
fide emergencies involving the health and safety of persons within the
area. The use of equipment, structures, or activities listed above may
be approved also: (1) [When] either an administrative or a cooperative
activity essential to the management of the wilderness cannot
reasonably be accomplished with primitive methods or by
nonmechanical means. In determination of what is reasonable, there
must be a showing that the need is based upon more than efficiency,
convenience, and economy....
In the same document, the FS states that in respect to the use of aircraft and
other mechanical equipment (Sect. 2326),
To the extent feasible, the management goal shall be to exclude the
sight, sound, and other tangible evidence of motorized equipment and
mechanical transport.
-------
37
There are no specific prohibitions of overflight of wilderness by aircraft. The
FA A has posted advisory notations (having no legal status) on all section charts,
establishing a 3000-ft limit above terrain over wilderness. While the advisory
notations are generally followed, penetration of the wilderness airspace does
occur frequently by military aircraft and, occasionally, by hunters searching for
game (Sect. 2326).
Exceptions to the regulations excluding motorized equipment and/or
mechanical transportation in wilderness areas can be permitted only if the
situation meets at least one of the following conditions (Sect. 2326.11):
a. It is obvious that the situation involves an inescapable urgency
and temporary need for speed beyond that available by primitive
means....[e.g., fire suppression, health and safety, law
enforcement]
b. A delivery or application problem exists which cannot reasonably
be met with the use of primitive methods....[e.g., delivery of
supplies or material to construct or maintain improvements
necessary for management of the area for the purposes of the
act...]
c. An activity essential for administering the wilderness is confined
by limitations of time, season, primitive manual skills, or other
restriction which makes the job impossible by primitive
means....[e.g., maintenance of trails and other improvements,
construction of trails and other improvements, geodetic control]
d. A necessary and continuing program was established before the
unit was incorporated into the National Wilderness Preservation
System on the basis of using motorized equipment, and its
continued use is essential to continuation of the program.
3.2 POTENTIALLY AFFECTED WILDERNESS AREAS
As proposed, Phase I of the NSWS would sample lakes located in 70 federally
designated wilderness areas and in 10 national parks. State maps indicating the
locations of wilderness areas and national parks which have lakes that would be
included in the proposed survey are shown in Figs. 3.2-1 through 3.2-8. The
number of lakes that would be sampled in each area is shown in parentheses.
Approximately 48% (425) of the 888 lakes selected for sampling would occur
in wilderness areas or national parks. An additional 73 lakes which are not
designated as wilderness areas but are located in national parks would also be
sampled. Table 3.2-1 shows the number of lakes within and outside of wilderness
areas and national parks for each state. A complete listing of the lakes being
sampled is provided in Appendix A. The boundaries of many western wilderness
areas have been affected by wilderness legislation passed by the 98th Congress in
the fall of 1984. As these boundary changes are finalized, the estimates of lakes
within or outside wilderness areas and parks may change slightly. The present list
of lakes in Appendix A has been verified with the assistance of regional FS staff
using the most current information available.
-------
38
ORNl-DWG 85-1315
/V—SISKIYOU WILDERNESS (2)
yVj-^MARBLE MOUNTAIN
\ n
{
%
{
• u WILDERNESS (4)
/^_ /-'V—TRINITY ALPS
WILDERNESS (8)
THOUSAND LAKES
WILDERNESS (2)
\
BUCKS LAKE y?
WILDERNESS (0
MOKELUMNE WILDERNESS (3)
\
I
EMIGRANT
WILDERNESS (4)
YOSEMITE
NATIONAL PARK (11,11)*
KAISER WILDERNESS (1)
DINKEY LAKES
WILDERNESS (2)
?
LASSEN VOLCANIC
NATIONAL PARK AND
WILDERNESS (7,5)*
CARIBOU WILOERNESS (31
•DESOLATION WILDERNESS (11)
• CARSON-ICEBERG WILDERNESS (1)
¦ HOOVER WILDERNESS (1)
MINARETS (ANSEL ADAMS)
WILDERNESS (5)
(
X
\
JOHN MUIR WILDERNESS (17)
SEQUOIA-KINGS CANYON
NATIONAL PARK (21,20)*
X
\
CALIFORNIA
\
v
\
J>
'"I
\
\
v..
1
.3
Fig. 3.2-1. Wilderness areas and national parks in California with
lakes proposed for sampling in the NSWS (number in
parentheses indicates the number of lakes in each area or
park).
-------
r
h
VN^-^MT. ZIRKEL WILDERNESS (16)
COMMANCHE PEAK WILDERNESS (1)
NEVER SUMMER WIUOERNESS (I) ROCKY MOUNTAIN NATIONAL PARK (34)
\J- INDIAN PEAKS WILDERNESS (13)
—EAGLES WEST WILDERNESS (2)
MT EVANS WILDERNESS (2)
MAsnow"massLS"^^^^^^^~~huwter'fbying pan wilderness (Z)
ORNL-OWG 85-13(6
FLAT TOPS
WILDERNESS
(9)
HOLY CROSS
WILDERNESS (2)-
WILDERNESS (2)-
COLLEGATE PEAKS WILDERNESS (1)
WEST ELK WILDERNESS (t)
COLORADO
WEMINUCHE WILDERNESS (15)
SOUTH SAN JUAN WILDERNESS (2)
CO
U3
NEW MEXICO
cz)-
- WHEELER PEAK W*_DERNESS (1)
Fig. 3.2-2.
Wilderness areas and national parks in Colorado and New Mexico with lakes proposed
for sampling in the NSWS (number in parentheses indicates the number of lakes in
each area or park).
-------
40
ORNL- OWG 85- t 316
r'
\
V
GOSPEL HUMP
WILDERNESS
^ ,1)
f
/ "Shells
j CANYON
/ WILDERNESS
(2)
)
SELWAY-BITTERROOT
WILDERNESS H6)
RIVER OF NO RETURN
WILDERNESS (10)
o-
SAWTOOTH WILDERNESS (18)
\
IDAHO
L...
,_J
. 3.2-3. Wilderness areas and national parks 1n Idaho with lakes
proposed for sampling In the NSWS (number 1n parentheses
Indicates the number of lakes 1n each area or park).
-------
ORNL-DWG 85-13(9
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK (6)
CABINET
MOUNTAINS
WILDERNESS
GREAT BEAR WILDERNESS H)
MONTANA
MISSION MOUNTAINS WILDERNESS (2)
— RATTLESNAKE WILDERNESS (2)
SELWAY-BITTERROOT WILDERNESS (15)
—ANACONDA-PINTLER WILDERNESS (3)
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH WILDERNESS «7)
LEE-METCALF
WILDERNESS (3)
r-
Fig. 3.2-4.
Wilderness areas and national parks in Montana with lakes proposed for sampling in
the NSWS (number in parentheses indicates the number of lakes in each area or park).
-------
r,_.
OR NIL-DWG 85-1314
\
X/ ^
COLUMBIA WILDERNESS (O
MT. HOOO WILDERNESS (1)
EAGLE CAP WILOERNESS (8)
MT. JEFFERSON WILDERNESS (2)
MT. WASHINGTON
WILDERNESS
THREE SISTERS WILDERNESS (10)
WALDO LAKE
WILDERNESS (3)
DIAMOND PEAK WILDERNESS (t
r
SKY LAKES WILDERNESS (5)
"S
1
(
i
OREGON
ro
Fig. 3.2-5. Wilderness areas and national parks in Oregon with lakes proposed for sampling in
the NSWS (number in parentheses indicates the number of lakes in each area or park).
-------
43
ORNL-DWG 85-1392
(
I I
I I
LONE PEAK
WILDERNESS (1)
~
HIGH UINTAS
WILDERNESS (15)
UTAH
Fig. 3.2-6. Wilderness areas and national parks in Utah with lakes
proposed for sampling in the NSWS (number in parentheses
indicates the number of lakes in each area or park).
-------
BOULDER RIVER
WILDERNESS
v(D
BUCKHORN
WILDERNESS
(1 )
MOUNT
BAKER
W.(t)
HENRY M
JACKSON
W. (2)
OLYMPIC
NATIONAL
PARK (4)
MOUNT RANIER
NATIONAL PARK (5)
CLEARWATER WILDERNESS (t)
WILLIAM O.DOUGLAS WILDERNESS (5)
GOAT ROCKS WILDERNESS (1)
INDIAN HEAVEN WILDERNESS (1)
ORNL-DWG 85-1393
/NORTH CASCADES NATIONAL PARK (6)
PAYSAYTEN WILDERNESS (7)
NOISY DlOBSUD W. (1)
LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH
WILDERNESS (2)
GLACIER PEAK WILDERNESS (9)
ALPINE LAKES WILDERNESS (20)
Fig. 3.2-7. Wilderness areas and national parks in Washington with lakes proposed for sampling in
the NSWS (number in parentheses indicates the number of lakes in each area or park).
-------
ORNL-DWG 05-1317
YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK (12)
CLOUD PEAK WILDERNESS (9)
TETON WILDERNESS (1)
GROS VENTRE
WILDERNESS (3)
FITZPATRICK WILDERNESS (6)
WIND RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION
ROADLESS AREA (9|
WYOMING
POPO AGIE WILDERNESS (8)
BRIDGER WILDERNESS (34)
GRAND TETON NATIONAL PARK (2)
JEDlDIAH SMITH WILDERNESS (1)
l
i
J
Fig. 3.2-8. Wilderness areas and national parks in Wyoming with lakes proposed for sampling in
the NSWS (number in parentheses indicates the number of lakes in each area or park).
-------
46
Table 3.2-1. Distribution of lakes within and outside wilderness
areas, by state
Total Percentage
number of within
Within lakes wilderness
State wilderness areas selected areas
California
101
Colorado
69
Idaho
47
Montana
45
New Mexico
1
Nevada
0
Oregon
32
Utah
16
Washington
52
Wyoming
62
Total 425
168
60
162
43
85
55
111
41
3
33
3
0
64
50
35
46
131
40
126
49
888 48
-------
47
These wilderness areas are located in nine western states. These areas are
usually typified by rugged terrain, steep slopes, and high altitudes. In many areas,
slopes average above 30% and may go to 70%. Typical lower elevations range
from around 3000 to 5000 ft above sea level, with typical higher elevations
ranging from around 8000 to 12,000 ft above sea level. Commonly occurring
features include high peaks and cliffs, deep narrow canyons, talus slopes, gently
sloping meadows, and forested river bottoms. In many areas lakes and streams
abound. Glacially created features such as cirques, U-shaped valleys, and
moraines often occur, with glaciers still present in some areas. Soils in most
cases are shallow, particularly on slopes, and are frequently poorly buffered and
infertile. The diverse topography and altitude of some areas contribute to rapid
and extreme weather changes.
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF CONCERN
Although each of the wilderness areas encompassed by the study exhibits
unique biotic characteristics, certain generalizations can be made. Composition
of forest communities, which make up at least 60% of most areas, depends heavily
on altitude and aspect. Major trees commonly encountered include various firs
(Abies spp.); Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziessi); hemlock (Tsuga spp.); and a
variety of pines (Pinus spp.), especially lodgepole (P. contorta), ponderosa
(P. ponderosa), white pine (P. monticola), and whitebark pine (P. albicaulis).
Alpine meadows and barren land are relatively common, particularly at higher
elevations. Meadows often support lupines (Lupinus spp.), Indian paintbrush
(Castilleja spp.), eriogonums (Eriogonus spp.), and a variety of grasses (e.g., Poa
spp., Agropyron spp., Bromus spp., Festuca spp., and Bouteloua spp.)
Wildlife in wilderness areas includes many species that are sensitive to
human presence or that require large areas of undisturbed habitat. Large
predators found in one or more of the areas considered here are black bear
(Euarctos americanus) and cougar (Felis concolor). Frequently encountered
hooved mammals include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), black-tailed deer (O.
crooki), elk (Elaphus sp.), moose (Alces alcesTj mountain goat (Oreamnos
americanus) and mountain sheep (Ovis canadensis and O. dalli). Smaller mammals
include mink and weasel (Mustela spp.), raccoon (Procyon lotor), bobcat (Lynx
rufus), and coyote (Canis latrans). Blue and ruffed grouse are abundant in many
areas and occur at least occasionally in others.
Many of the wilderness area lakes offer a sport fishery of native and
introduced salmonids; in some cases, fish are stocked. Sport fish species include
rainbow (including steelhead), golden, and cutthroat trout (Salmo gairdneri, S.
aguabonita, and S. clarki), brook trout and Dolly Varden (Salvelinus fontinalis and
S. malmaT, chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), and grayling (Thymallus
arcticus). Salmonids, including brook and rainbow trout, have been found to be
susceptible to the effects of acidification in North America and Europe (e.g.,
Henriksen et al. 19S4, Beamish and Harvey 1972).
-------
48
3.4 ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES
Federally listed endangered terrestrial species (FWS 1984) which could be
encountered in the NSWS include woodland caribou (Ranqifer tarandus caribou) in
the Selkirk mountains of northern Idaho and extreme northeastern Washington; the
gray wolf (Canis lupus) in central Idaho, bald eagle (Haliaaetus leucocephalus).
endangered throughout the conterminous United States except as noted below;
whooping crane (Grus americana) in the Gray's Lake area of southeastern Idaho;
and American peregrine falcon (Falco pereqrinus anatum) throughout the region.
Threatened species (FWS 1984) include the bald eagle, threatened in Washington
and Oregon in the region of the NSWS; arctic peregrine falcon (F. q. tundris)
throughout the region; and grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribiiis). The largest
population of the latter occurs in the Yellowstone ecosystem (Yellowstone
National Park and surrounding areas), where from 130 to 350 individuals are
estimated to occur (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982). Other ecosystems where
populations are known to occur are the Glacier National Park and Bob Marshall
Wilderness Area, the Cabinet-Mountains and Selkirk Mountains, the
Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, and the North Cascades National Park (FWS
1982). Correspondence with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concerning
endangered and threatened species appears in Appendix B.
Four fish species considered endangered or threatened according to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS 1984) may be found in or near wilderness area
lakes to be sampled in the NSWS. The endangered Kendall Warm Springs dace
(Rhinichthys osculus thermalis) occurs near the Bridger Wilderness in Wyoming;
the threatened Paiute cutthroat trout (Salmo clarki seleniris). Greenback
cutthroat trout (S. c. stomias). and the Little Kern golden trout (S. aguabonita
gilberti) are found in or near the John Muir, Mokelumne, and Ansel Adams
Wilderness Areas and Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks (California); and
Rocky Mountain National Park, and Comanche Peak and Indian Peaks Wilderness
Areas in Colorado (Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife 1973; Lee et al. 1980;
Ono et al. 1983). Although these are typically stream rather than lake species,
cutthroat trout may also be found in mountain lakes (Lee et al. 1980).
-------
49
4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 (USE OF HELICOPTERS ONLY)
4.1.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values
Of the major wilderness values described in Sect. 3.1.1, only the first two,
experiential and mental and moral restoration would likely be affected by use of
helicopters. Potential scientific values would remain unchanged because the
proposed action under this alternative would leave no physical changes to the
wilderness (landing only on water) and would have only a transitory impact on
wildlife due to the helicopter's noise and appearance (see Sect. 4.1.3). In the
event of a helicopter accident, slight, but transitory damage to the scientific
value of the wilderness could occur as a result of fire, trauma to wildlife, or
engine fuels or other fluids in or on water bodies. In terms of scientific values,
the proposed NSWS survey itself is in keeping with the spirit of the Wilderness Act
in that it would use the wilderness as a barometer, or yardstick, to further
understanding of the threats of acidic deposition. The foremost value in
wilderness management is taking those actions that preserve wilderness
character, that maintain the integrity of the wilderness. To the extent that other
alternatives cannot meet the timing needs and quality guidelines of the laka
survey. Alternative 1 would be in keeping with the spirit and letter of the
Wilderness Act.
Experiential values. The chief impacts to the experiential values
(Sect. 3.1.1) associated with the various western wilderness areas would likely
- accrue from a public more concerned with the fact of an intrusion than with the
specifics of the reasons for the intrusion. The enjoyment of nature is the primary
value in the wilderness experience (Kaplan and Talbot 1983). The aesthetic
benefit believed to be derived from enjoying nature is the highest benefit
identified in psychological studies of the motivations people have for visiting
wilderness areas. That the visual and audible presence of a helicopter would be
incompatible with visitor's expectations of the aesthetic quality of a wilderness is
clear. The loss of engine fuels or fluids from a leak could cast a transient
shimmering slick on pristine-appearing waters and extend the perception of
intrusion.
Precedents for helicopter use in wilderness areas do exist. Intrusions by
helicopters in recent FS experience have been for fire suppression, snow level
monitoring, repair of dams, search and rescue operations, placement of temporary
seismic monitoring equipment, USGS survey and mapping, etc. Requests for
permission to use helicopters have been denied to private mineral and energy
exploration companies, certain USGS activities, some Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) snow monitoring operations, etc.
A multiyear cooperative agreement regarding helicopter use, among other
activities, between the FS and the USGS recently expired. Helicopters were used
relatively frequently in wildernesses by the USGS to meet a December 31, 1983,
time limit set in the Wilderness Act for filing a claim or leasing of oil or gas. In
the past year, the use of helicopters by the USGS is being brought into compliance
with the intent of the Wilderness Act (E. Bloedel, U.S. Forest Service,
-------
50
Washington, D.C., personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 5, 1985).
The FS is also becoming more restrictive in the terms of its agreements with local
sheriffs' offices who are responsible for mounting the helicopter search and
rescue team operations in emergency situations. Unwitting abuse of these
agreements (searches undertaken when missing people are in fact no longer even
in the wilderness) is a management problem in some areas, and the FS is trying to-
strengthen existing policies to minimize its occurrence (E. Bloedel, U.S. Forest
Service, Washington, D.C., personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 5,
1985).
As an example of the number of intrusions of helicopters into wilderness
areas in a given year, data are available from Region 2 (Rocky Mountain Region)
of the FS. In 1983, there were a total of 31 authorized helicopter operations in
the various wilderness areas within the Region: 27 search and rescue missions, 3
USGS mineral surveys, and one other of unnamed mission (L. Carr, U.S. Forest
Service, Lakewood, Colorado, personal communication to R. Cushman, Dec. 7,
1985). The distribution of these operations in time and space is not known.
Whether these totals are representative of other FS Regions is not known.
Because the Wilderness Act appears to permit exclusionary administrative
actions on the part of the FS only when a specific wilderness area is threatened
(Sect. 3.1.3), the proposed helicopter use would not be justified. If, however, such
administrative actions could be justified on the basis of a perceived lower-level
threat to the entire system, or to significant portions of it, the action called fop
in Alternative 1 would also appear to be justifiable. Recent studies (cited in
Sect. 1.2) suggest that a near-term threat to some specific wilderness areas may
exist.
The proposed use of helicopters as EPA's preferred sampling access
technique (Alternative 1), or in combination with ground-access surveying
(Alternative 3), is predicated on the concept that long-term wilderness values are
sufficiently threatened by acidic deposition to natural ecosystems to justify the
temporary intrusion into wilderness by motorized equipment. The situation could
be considered as homologous to that faced by wilderness managers dealing with
helicopter use in fire suppression issues. In that situation, the long-term
objective is to return fire to its natural role as a dynamic ecological force.
Because of several decades of unnatural fire suppression activities prior to
wilderness designation, some areas could not endure a conscious decision to let a
naturally caused fire burn unchecked. Too much highly combustible natural fuel
may have accumulated on the forest floor. A crown fire would likely develop
which could devastate mature wilderness forests and have catastrophic
consequences to lands adjacent to its boundaries. Over a long period of time,
areas with too much natural fuel accumulation may be able to be managed to
allow natural fires, but not by allowing each natural fire to burn uncontrollably.
The confused public, only recently having been sensitized to the need to permit
fire to play its natural role in ecosystem dynamics, would now find wilderness
managers using mechanized equipment to fight fires. The education of the public
needs to carry the whole concept through to the idea of gradual implementation.
Similarly, the proposed helicopter use would need to be explained to a public
still learning about the meaning of dedicated wilderness. As a temporary,
one-time use of mechanized equipment. Alternative 1 could be considered a step
-------
51
toward implementing a longer-range, higher objective for wilderness management
— the operation of only natural environmental processes in the wilderness. This
is the meaning of an enduring, untrammeled setting. Figure 4.1-1 illustrates this
point. A near-term, brief, minor negative wilderness encounter (the intrusion of
helicopters) would occur to the visiting public with an impact represented by
"zone A." By enduring the.impact of this management action, severe ecosystem
impacts (represented by "zone B") potentially occurring at a much later, indefinite
future date would presumably be avoided. Thus, in both fire suppression activities
and baseline acidic deposition data collection, exemptions of normal restrictions
on mechanized equipment would be made so that at a later date wilderness values
could be protected and enhanced in a totally natural way.
If helicopters are permitted to gain access to the survey lakes, an important
perceived threat to wilderness values could occur in the sense that some people
may see the action as setting precedent. If viewed as a precedent, Alternative 1
could be seen to, lead to other exceptions that could, in their totality, seriously
damage short- and/or long-term wilderness character.
Mental and moral restoration. The proposed use of helicopters would cause
substantial, but generally transitory, impacts to the sense of solitude and the
opportunities it affords for restoration (see Sect. 3.1.1). Besides the noise, sight,
and possibly, the blade blast of the helicopter, the mere fact of the occurrence of
an activity which is believed to be unauthorized can be most disconcerting. In
Kaplan's (1983) discussion of environments supportive of the restorative
experience, he cites the importance of situations where people have a "sense of
things being under control." From this line of thinking, the simple advance
knowledge that a helicopter intrusion authorized by the FS may occur during a
wilderness trip may be sufficient reassurance to the wilderness visitor that "things
are under control." The reasons for the flight may not concern the visitor at all.
The lack of advance knowledge (and 100% success in forwarning all wilderness
visitors is unlikely) could completely disrupt the restorative wilderness experience
for some visitors because the perception may be one of people getting away with
something or doing something illegal - in other words, one of "things being out of
control."
Kaplan (1983) and Hammitt and Brown (in press) cited the wilderness's lack
of discrepant and distracting influences as being one of the principal reasons for
its remarkable capacity to support the restorative experience. A temporary
helicopter intrusion could have such profoundly negative effects on the sense of
tranquility and compatibility with wilderness expectations that the experience
could destroy the opportunity for reflection and integration discussed in
Sect. 3.3. Kaplan (1983) writes that a restorative experience must, "at the very
least, ... give one a sense of being away, both in the sense of change of scenery
and also in the absence of the pressures, constraints, and distractions of the
everyday environment." Not every visitor will be delighted that scientists are
trying to solve the acidic deposition problem, even if the problem's continuation
may in future years endanger the very wilderness they are enjoying. Some will
see the intrusion, even if both it and its rationale (no matter how nobly stated) are
known in advance, as distractions from the daily world that the visitor thought
was left at the trailhead entry to the wilderness.
-------
52
ORNL-DWG 85-7917
O
<
o
o
z
<
s
D
X
VARIATION
IN
WILDERNESS
EXPERIENCE
>-
3
<
Z3
a
UJ
o
cc
3
o
CO
HUMAN CONTACT
LIMIT OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE-
MAN-CAUSED
CHANGE
¦PRISTINE WILDERNESS EXPERIENCE-
MAN-CAUSED
CHANGE
¦LIMIT OF ACCEPTABLE CHANGE-
UNACCEPTABLE RESOURCE
CHANGE
TIME
Fig. 4.1-1. Relationship of proposed helicopter use to acceptable/
unacceptable variation in perceived wilderness experience
(modified from Hendee et al. 1978).
-------
53
The restorative potential of wilderness is at its most effective when
extended wilderness trips are undertaken. Kaplan and Talbot (1983) reported that
participants in their studies did not show the most profound personal changes and
feelings until the fifth through the seventh days in the wilderness. The changes
occurring around the seventh day were at a significantly deeper level than those
observable and described as being present on days three or four through five.
These final changes were the ones that centered on reflection and contemplation
— the most elusive everyday pursuits. The noted wilderness backpacker Colin
Fletcher has reported similar emotions within a similar timeframe, based both on
his personal experiences and on his observations and discussions with others
(Fletcher 1984).
The deepest psychological benefits from a wilderness experience appear to
take at least a week to occur; they also are progressive in their occurrence. In a
predictable order and pattern they gradually unfold, each successive benefit
dependent on the preceding benefits, all creating an accumulative impact through
time (Kaplan and Talbot 1983). Thus, the disruptiveness of the proposed
helicopter use would have its most damaging effects on the restorative experience
if it were to occur toward the end of an extended wilderness trip. Not only would
it be most disruptive at that time, visitors' personal judgments of the aesthetic
milieu surrounding the helicopter intrusion would likely be the harshest according
to Kaplan and Talbot's research. No matter how long the trip, the earlier in the
trip the intrusion occurs, the least impact it would have. As a final point, the
research and observations reported above may be interpreted to suggest that the
wilderness benefits of mental and moral restoration may be somewhat overstated
for the average wilderness visitor. Hendee et al, (1978) report that less than 10%
of wilderness visitors (even in the largest wildernesses) stay at least one week,
and that the average stay in wildernesses in Washington and Oregon (for which
such data were available) was from 2 to 3.5 d. They also cite that many small- or
medium-sized wildernesses are predominantly day-use areas, Kaplan and Talbot
report that the first significant stage in psychological benefits of wilderness does
not begin to occur until between days three and four.
To the majority of wilderness users who can visit for only a brief time (1-2
d), the intrusion of a helicopter could be more of an irritant than a threat to a
deeper psychological experience. The two types of impact, while different in
kind, could be comparable in degree of negative effect on the wilderness
experience.
4.1.2 Impacts to Recreation
While the most obvious wilderness use is recreational, it is not the primary
reason the National Wilderness Preservation System was established. The
Wilderness Act's objective is to preserve an enduring wilderness resource
characterized by naturalness and outstanding opportunities for solitude; primitive
recreation is provided for, with these goals as overriding constraints (Hendee et
al. 1978). Hammitt (1982) found that the lack of manmade noises seemed to be
more important to wilderness visitors1 assessment of the quality of their
experience then any other variable, even more than the lack of seeing manmade
intrusions. Because the tranquility and sense of quiet order one expects in the
wilderness would be disrupted by the proposed helicopter use, the following
discussion first examines the nature of the noise Impact before examining the
impacts on specific recreational groups.
-------
54
Noise. All recreational uses of wildernesses will be affected by the noise of
the helicopters used in the proposed action. Helicopters at 500 ft are comparable
in sound levels to heavy trucks and city buses heard from a street. Helicopter
sounds are dramatically different in character, however, from other modes of
transportation. Takeoff, landing, and flyover each has a different combination
and intensity of sound. The two- major components of noise are pitch (or
frequency) and intensity (or amplitude). The most common unit used to measure
loudness or sound intensity is the decibel (dB). The most common weighting
system is the "A scale," written dB/^. It gives more weight to to the higher
pitched tones which humans find more annoying, and thus the scale more closely
matches the effect of sounds on humans than would a straight dB scale. Wildlife
are known to be more sensitive to the lower frequencies, so the scale is not
applicable when evaluating sound intensity impacts on animals. The dB^ scale is
logarithmic. Table A.l-l displays noise levels commonly encountered and helps to
place the sounds of the helicopters likely to be used in perspective.
A typical wilderness might have ambient noise levels in the range of 10 to
20 dBy^. EPA's Region 8 field crews have measured sound levels as low as 10 dBA
for extended periods of time in wilderness areas and national parks (L. Svoboda,
EPA, Denver, Colorado, personal communication to Carl Petrich, ORNL, Feb. 13,
1985). There are no established standards for evaluating noise impacts in
extremely quiet areas such as wilderness areas. Noise standards established for
urban areas do not adequately apply to areas with very low ambient sound levels.
Some scientists have suggested that simple audibility of noise serves as the best
criterion of the level of impact in quiet areas (L. Svoboda, EPA, Denver,
Colorado, personal communication to Carl Petrich, ORNL, Feb. 13, 1985). Thus a
"psychoacoustic footprint" based on an "all-or-nothing" measurement of aud':i: lit -
means the proposed helicopter use would have a noise impact durc.ioo
considerably beyond the lake approach, sampling, and take-off. Extensive
empirical data are not available, but EPA scientists have collected data that
suggest that sound intensities only 5-10 dB^ above ambient levels comprise the
threshold of audibility.
A normal attenuation of 6-10 dB^ with each doubling of distance would not
be applicable with the sampling in the proposed wilderness areas. Sound intensity
attenuation is exacerbated by the low western humidities, the complex terrain,
and the generation of sound over a cold water surface, which tends to hold sound
downwards. The complex terrain around alpine lakes would most likely tend to
reverberate, reflect, and refract sound in difficult-to-predict ways.
The loudest noise from the proposed helicopter use would be approximately
90 dB^, at landing on the lake surface, 500 ft from an observer on shore.
Appendix C gives a variety of expected sound exposure levels for a variety of
receptor distances for takeoff, landing, level flyover, and various hovering
regimes for the Bell long ranger, the helicopter, most likely to be used fop
sampling. From data in Table 4.1-1 and Appendix C, one can see that a typical
wilderness visitor at a lakeshore would first encounter the sounds of a helicopter
approaching from a level flyover altitude of 2000 ft. Exact data are unavailable
on the intensity of this sound, but they would likely be in the vicinity of 40 dB^,
As the helicopter landed, the sound intensity to an observer located 500 ft from
the deepest point of the lake would increase to approximately 80-90 dB^. While
on the water doing the sampling (15-20 min), sound intensities
-------
55
Table 4.1-1 Intensity of helicopter noisea relative to common noise levels
Example
Decibels
Effect with
prolonged exposure
Jet takeoff (close range)
150
Eardrum ruptures
Thunderclap, jet takeoff (200 ft)
120
Human pain threshold
Steel mill, live rock music,
riveting, auto horn (3 ft)
110
Jet at 1000 ft, subway,
outboard motor, power mower,
motorcycle (25 ft), farm
tractor, jackhammer,
100
Serious hearing damage
(8 hours)
Helicopter3 at a landing or
takeoff; busy urban street,
diesel truck
90
Hearing Damage (8 hours)
Helicopter® hovering at 5-
foot height; freight train
(50 ft); clothes washer,
average factory; garbage
disposal; noisy office
80
Helicopter® on water surface
with main rotor maintained
at 100* RPM (66-74 dBA);
freeway traffic (50 ft;;
vacuum cleaner;
70
Annoyi ng
Helicopter3 on water surface
with main rotor maintained
at 67% RPM (56-66 dBA);
conversation in restaurant;
typical suburb
60
Intrusive
Quiet suburb (daytime), con-
versation in living room
50
Quiet
Library
40
Quiet rural area (nighttime)
30
Whisper, rustling leaves*
20
Very quiet
Breathing
10
0
Threshold of audibility
Referenced to a human standing 500 feet from the source.
*Typical ambient sound levels in wilderness areas would range from 10 to 20
d8A.
Source: after Miller 1975 and Newman, et al. 1984.
-------
56
would range from 56-66 dB^ if a reduced engine-idle speed could be maintained
or 66-74 dB^ if full engine idle speed was necessary. Takeoff sound intensities
would decrease with ascent from 83 dB^ to the level during flyover (40 dB^ and
less) as the helicopter flew from the area. Table 4.1-1 permits the reader to
correlate these sound intensities to more familiar noises.
Helicopters are acoustically complex machines that generate noise from two
primary areas: the main rotor, tail rotor, aerodynamic noise, compressor tones,
and the gear train; and blade vortex interaction and high advancing tip Mach
numbers (Newman et al. 1984). The latter noise-generating mechanisms are both
associated with in-flight effects and both produce impulsive noise (e.g. "blade
slap"). Blade slap is commonly heard in the approach operational mode (landings)
as a result of the interaction between air vortices generated by the main rotor
action colliding with successive sweeps of the rotor blades during descent. This
generally annoying sound phenomenon is maximized for certain helicopters at
airspeeds in the 50- to 70-knot range, at rates of descent ranging from 200 to 400
ft/min. Changing the angle of descent from 6 degrees to 9 or 12 degrees can
decrease the noise generated by 3 to 6 dB^ while the same air speed is maintained.
The FAA has developed most of its data and policies for addressing
helicopter noise in urban or suburban areas. Their advisories are not directly
applicable to wilderness areas where ambient levels are so low that mere
audibility is the critical factor. The FAA supports a "Fly Neighborly" program
Initiated by the various helicopter manufacturers. This voluntary program
educates pilots as to the tradeoffs that they can make in air speed, angle of
descent, and resultant noise while flying in sensitive areas. The tradeoffs not only
involve diminishing noise levels at one location while increasing them at another,
but also must involve balancing safety factors and the passenger discomfort of too
rapid decelerations or rates of descent. Pilots will always give safety the
greatest weight in any consideration of these factors.
Exact noise prediction is dependent on the specific type of helicopter, its
maintenance quality, the terrain conditions, the flight path trajectory, and upper
air meteorological characteristics such as temperature, relative humidity, wind
direction, and wind speed. While a helicopter increases its air speed, two
acoustically related events occur: the actual duration of the noise over a given
point will decrease because the helicopter will pass more quickly; and a noise
intensity vs air speed relationship approximating a parabolic curve begins. As the
helicopter increases its speed beyond that necessary for minimum power, the
power required (torque) increases with an increase in air speed. Initially, the
noise levels decrease with increasing airspeed, but then an upturn occurs as a
consequence of increasing advancing blade tip Mach number effects, which in turn
generate impulsive noise (blade slap). Generally, noise increases rapidly when the
Mach number increases beyond 0.8 (Newman et al. 1984). Each manufacturer can
supply the appropriate "Fly Neighborly" cruising speed, or the speed at the nadir
of the noise intensity/air speed parabola. The trade-off here would be that flying
at the best "Fly Neighborly" cruising speed would mean an extended duration of
the "psychacoustical footprint."
-------
57
Hiking and horseback riding. The dominant impacts of the proposed
helicopter sampling associated with these recreational activities would be the
sight and sound of the helicopters either landing and doing the sampling or flying
overhead (or both). The psychological dimensions of these impacts were discussed
in Sect. A. 1.1. Because hiking and riding are the chief means of travel in
wilderness areas, impacts on these activities pervade nearly ail other wilderness
activities. The general aesthetic context of wilderness in which other
recreational pursuits take place is frequently the dominant reason for being in the
wilderness. In one wilderness (Alpine Lakes), studies found that 80% of the
fisherman indicated they visited the lakes for reasons other than or in addition to
fishing. Similar findings were made in the Desolation Wilderness. The Alpine
Lakes studies found that
only about 40% of the visitors to the lakes actually fished, only 40% of
the parties contained fisherman, anglers fished an average of less than
two hours per day, and 40% of them caught no fish. An equally
important finding: non-fishermen spent just as much time at the
lakeshore as anglers. Other studies...confirm that, on the average,
only about half the visitors to wilderness high lakes actually fish
(Hendee et al. 1978).
Thus, the water-focused activities are multipurpose and have more passive
recreational activities such as hiking, camping, nature appreciation, and
photography among their major foci.
Because of the importance of hiking or riding as primary activities or as a
means to pursue other activities, use patterns in most wildernesses are highly trail
related (Fig. 4.1-2). Forest Service studies have found that fewer than 20% of the
wilderness visitors do any cross-country traveling, and only a subset of this group
does any off-trail traveling (Hendee et al. 1978). The impact on those who do
make the effort to get off the formal trail system and "away" would presumably
be substantially greater than to those who follow the established trails. In more
open country or above timberline, one will find more off-trail use. In heavily
forested and extremely steep areas, nearly all travel is restricted to trails.
Because of this, the flightpaths of the helicopter overflights could be sensitively
planned in many areas to avoid most wilderness users (Sect. 4.1.6).
Camping sites are also highly clustered. In a study of the Desolation
Wilderness, the most popular 16% of the camping sites accounted for one-half of
all use; the least used one-half comprised only 18% of all use. In studies of the
Spanish Peaks area and the Bridger Wilderness Area, 85% of the campsites were
found to be within 200 ft of either a lake or stream (Hendee et al. 1978). The
proposed action would unavoidably encounter numerous recreational users because
of the lakes being the EPA's focus of interest, too.
Thus, other than for trails and camping sites, relatively little direct use is
made of the wilderness's vast acreages. Hendee et al. (1978) report that
managers of the John Muir Wilderness Area estimated that only about 2% of the
area was actually used directly. The primary use of this land is as a stage for the
wilderness experience to occur, and, as stated earlier, the aesthetic benefit is the
most highly valued of the wilderness experiences. To the extent that the proposed
helicopter use avoids appearing visually and audibly within this stage, the survey
-------
ORNL-DWG 85-7932
LAKC
UW * FALLS
CHECK LAKE
LAKE
MAMMONO
CKCCK
CASCAOt
SPANISH PEAKS PRIMITIVE AREA
1970 RECREATIONAL USE
JUNE 14 - NOVEMBER 13
HIKERS ONLY
* LIGHT USE
>0 0* LEU MOur M«HT>
~ MODERATE USE
• I TO 100 MOUP NISNTS
ie HEAVY USE
•Maria THH <00
mou* mishts
GROUP TRAIL USE
«0 HILC
CAMPING INTENSITY
VUPCMtlt MVNDAIT
Ui
00
Fig. 4.1-2. Distribution of recreational use, Spanish Peaks Primitive Area, Montana, 1970 (Source:
Hendee et al. 1978).
-------
59
would go largely undetected. To the extent that encounters occur at more
frequented spots, the higher the impacts would be. To the extent that encounters
are on the periphery of the wilderness, the less the impact may be (some
peripheral areas may, however, be the most remote areas in the wilderness and,
thereby, the most sensitive to the wilderness visitor who has made the extra
effort to seek solitude there). Generally, however, there is an expectation of
more likelihood for more disruption from other visitors when on the periphery of
wilderness areas (Hendee et al. 1978). Impacts at campsites would be more
disruptive than on trails, and impacts in remote, internal locations could be the
greatest, despite their location. While fewer in number, visitors there are
presumably the most sensitive to disruptions.
The wildlife aspects of the aesthetic experience of wilderness would be
affected briefly by the proposed use of helicopters for the survey. Some people's
main motivation in seeking wilderness is to observe and photograph native species
in natural settings. There is a rich cultural heritage of wildlife being used as an
indicator of the wildness of a given location. Grizzly bears connote the wildlands
of Yellowstone and Glacier National Parks to most of America. To the
ecologically informed, wolves and wolverines are true indicators of wilderness;
they reflect the substantial absence of human influences. Hendee and Schoenfeld
(1978) remark that "simply knowing such wildlife is present is important in the
meaning of wilderness."
For the serious wildlife observer, the grizzly bear and the bighorn sheep are
the most desired species to find in wilderness. The proposed helicopter use could
temporarily disrupt efforts to observe either of these species, particularly
bighorns. If an opportunity to observe these or other high-preference species is
lost, the proposed helicopter use would have a significant negative impact on a
visitor's wilderness experience. The serendipitous encounter with many wild
species may be an even larger thrill to the wilderness visitor than successful
sightings by visitors who have come searching for certain species. The reward of
discovery, of the unexpected, of unique outdoor experiences is much of what
wilderness can deliver to the visitor. To visitors who do not have chance
observations of certain species or who miss fortuitous encounters with an area's
wildlife because of the disruption caused by helicopter use, a degradation of their
potential wilderness experience would occur, even if they are unaware of what
they missed. For the serious wildlife observer specifically looking for certain
species (see the discussion in the hunting section, below), the opportunity to see
mountain goats or sheep should well remain after helicopter disruption because
after an initial, brief fright response, these species revert to their predictable
patterns of movement and should be easily found again (Hendee and Schoenfeld
1978).
As a comparison, the proposed helicopter use and hunting offers a
perspective on the relative degree of disruption and noise. From the perspective
of the wildlife experiences discussed above, the proposed helicopter use would
likely have less impact than would a typical hunting season. During hunting
season, a rifle shot (or series of shots) scaring away wildlife and breaking the
tranquility and solitude would be extremely disruptive to some wilderness visitors,
particularly so to those who do not know hunting is a permissible activity in most
wildernesses. After hunting season, some significant time may need to elapse
before game return to their normal movement, bedding, and feeding patterns.
-------
60
Visitors during this interim period could completely miss the wildlife. Over the
years, hunting pressures and disturbances may effect changed wildlife behavior
patterns. The proposed helicopter use is a one-time occurrence.
Fishing. That some wilderness lakes are stocked with fish to enhance the
fishing, experience, that some are stocked that were barren prior to man's
discovery of the lakes, and that some are even stocked by aircraft (if the practice
preceded wilderness designation) provides a context in which to assess the
suggestion that the proposed helicopter use is disruptive to fishing opportunities in
the wilderness. The threat of acid rain to aquatic life is a direct one in some
wilderness lakes, and the proposed survey would provide information useful in
providing relief to the fishery resource. The most serious impact to fishing as a
recreational activity would be the impact on the aesthetic dimension of the
fishing experience. It should be recognized that some anglers resent any intrusion
by anyone into remote areas they have sought out with strenuous effort. The
proposed helicopter use, in that the technique involves sampling away from the
shoreline at the deepest point in each lake, would have minimal impact on the
fishing potential on a given day.
Hunting. As with fishing, hunting as a recreational activity in the
wilderness brings with it some controversy. Because no hunting occurs in national
parks, many wilderness visitors falsely believe that it is an illegal activity in
wilderness areas. The Wilderness Act passed on the management of wildlife in the
new areas to the states, just as it had been their responsibility when the lands
were national forests. Because of game-protection practices on lands adjacent to
wilderness, the management challenge within the wilderness can at times be
compounded. The lack of natural predators to larger game species can lead to
excessive populations. Natural predators can be as scarce in wilderness areas as
they are in the general lands surrounding the areas. Therefore, hunting serves to
protect the vitality of the population of wilderness game. Controversy again
enters the picture in that hunters are perceived by some wilderness visitors as
being insufficiently selective with respect to age and sex of their game to ensure
that the natural behavior and dynamics of the game populations are maintained.
Hunting is not seen by many as mimicking the patterns of kill that natural
predators would perform. As an example, trophy bighorn rams serve a prime role
in the breeding pattern of the herd. Their elimination arguably weakens the
long-term vitality of the herd, part of the enduring wilderness character of the
area.
The earlier discussion (Sect. 3.3) of using wilderness-dependent activities vs
wilderness-associated ones as guides to making wilderness management decisions
has direct application to the potential conflict between the proposed helicopter
use and hunting. The proposed action is decidedly dependent on wilderness
(Sect. 2.1, etc.). Section 4.4.6 and Table 4.4-1 underscore the relationship
between wilderness lakes, low alkalinity classes (vulnerability to acidification),
and the ability to make accurate regional characterizations of the acidic
deposition problem. Hunting for some species (such as bighorn sheep or mountain
goats) is essentially wilderness dependent. For others, such as deer or elk, it is
not particularly wilderness dependent, except in the respect that the satisfaction
derived from stalking the game may be perceived as only being achievable to the
desired level in a wilderness setting. Thus, the conflict can, for some species and
some hunters, be resolved on a wilderness-dependency basis.
-------
61
Popular big game species such as Bighorn sheep and mountain goats are
creatures of quite predictable habits. If they are startled by the sight and sounds
of the proposed helicopter use, the fright response would be temporary. Hendee
and Schoenfeld (1978) report studies that show that such animals can be readily
tracked (by experienced hunters) after such a disruption; presumably, the hunt
could then soon be resumed. Some hunts would be disrupted psychologically, if
not physically, if hunters were unable to reschedule a planned trip and had to
commence the hunt knowing that, weather permitting, a helicopter might fly
overhead and/or land on a given lake along their proposed route.
4.1.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endanoered Species
Wildlife. The most likely adverse impact on wildlife associated with the use
of helicopters would be the effects of noise. Most noise effects, however, have to
do with long-term exposure to relatively high levels and the consequent
permanent effects on health, physiology, or behavior. In the present case, the
only probable effect of one or, at most, several overflights by helicopters would
be a startle or fright response. Except in the relatively unlikely event of an
accident suffered by a frightened animal, such impacts would be minor and
transitory. Observations show that a variety of wildlife species may be frightened
by noise and visual perception of both rotary and fixed wing aircraft. Of note for
wildlife species in the western region are Canada geese, bears, antelope, deer,
elk, wild sheep and goats, and a variety of small mammals (Dufour 1980). Lakes
to be sampled in Olympic National Park are in areas used by elk during the
mid-September rutting season (NPS 1985). It is highly desireable to avoid
disturbing these animals during this time. The fact that effects are in most cases
relatively minor is supported by the widespread use of helicopters to enumerate
big game, including bears, mountain sheep and goats, caribou, and wolves
(Chapman and Feldhamer 1982).
Endangered and threatened species. Potential impacts of helicopter use on
endangered and threatened species are the same as for other wildlife, but are of
greater concern because populations of these species may be particularly
susceptible to damage. Thus, noise from helicopters during nesting seasons of
bald eagles or staging of whooping cranes, for example, could disrupt these
critical reproductive activities and contribute to threats to the species' continued
existence. The timing and nature of the proposed activity under this alternative,
however, make significant impacts to endangered species very unlikely, with two
possible exceptions.
The sampling window, (i.e., September to October 15th) for the region
occurs after nesting and fledging of avian endangered species (bald eagle,
peregrine falcon, and whooping crane). On the other hand, where lakes are near
eagle or falcon sites, juveniles may remain in the nest area during the
postfledging period [i.e., around August 15 (D. Flath, Montana Dept. Fish,
Wildlife, and Parks, Bozeman, Montana personal communication to 3. W. Webb,
ORNL, Dec. 11, 1984) and close coordination with wildlife officials would help
minimize any problems.
Although staging by whooping cranes may occur during the sampling period,
the random selection process produced no lakes in the Gray's Lake area, where
efforts are under way to establish a whooping crane flock by using sandhill cranes
-------
62
as foster parents. Grizzly bears have been observed to exhibit fright or
aggressive behavior in response to aircraft (McCourt et al. 1974), but their
reactions are extremely individualized and are, in any case, unlikely to endanger
an affected animal's life or health. The continuing use of helicopters and fix
winged aircraft to census grizzlies (Chapman and Feldhamer 1982) is testimony to
the low risk of significant impacts. Aircraft noise is also known to frighten
caribou herds (Jakimchuk et al. 1974), and a stampeding herd could sustain injury
or death of some individuals. In the case of the small remaining group of
woodland caribou (about 13 to 20 animals) in the Selkirk mountains of Washington,
Idaho, and British Columbia, such an event could be a serious. However, given the
information on the distribution of this herd (USFWS 1984), and of the lakes to be
sampled (Appendix A), and encounter is very unlikely. Because the herd includes
radio-tagged individuals (USFWS 1984), and potential encounter could be avoided
by careful planning at the time of sampling.
Even though four endangered or threatened fish species [a dace and three
trout species (Sect. 3.3)] may be found in or near wilderness areas to be sampled
in the NSWS, no adverse effects would be expected except in the unlikely event of
a large accidential fuel spill into a small water body containing the species
(Sect. 4.1.4).
4.1.4 Impacts to Water Bodies
The major potential source of environmental impact to water bodies would
be a spill or leak of fuel from the helicopters into the lakes being sampled. Leaks
of hydraulic fluid and spills of other materials (pH standard solutions, freeze-gel
packs) could also occur.
Given a minimum lake size of approximately 1 ha (USEPA 1984a) and
assuming that the mean depth of the lakes would be at least 1 m, then the
minimum lake volume to be affected by a hypothetical spill would be 10,000 rrj3
(although smaller water bodies could be affected by spills or leaks while the
helicopter was en route).
A hypothetical spill of 100 L of fuel into a lake of this size would represent
a maximum concentration (after complete mixing and ignoring processes such qs
volatilization) of approximately 10 ppm. In fact, evaporation is likely to be
least 100 times as great as dissolution for volatile hydrocarbon mixtures such qs
aviation gasoline or jet fuel, and dissolved hydrocarbon concentrations would
probably be less than 1 ppb within minutes (McAuliffe 1979). Based on data fQr
jet fuels summarized by Burks (1982, page 21), a concentration of 0.1 PPrn
(equivalent to 10 ppm divided by 100, to account for evaporation) would be less
than the "no-effect" level for some fish species: a concentration of less than \
ppb would not be expected to be toxic to fish or their eggs. The potential for
effects would depend on many factors, including the amount and type of fUej
spilled; size of the lake affected; physical and chemical factors such as wind
insolation, and mixing; and species and life stages present at the time of the spin]
For all but the smallest water bodies that could be encountered, no significant
toxic effects would be expected, but a visible sheen might result from ar»y
hydrocarbon spill or leak.
-------
63
A.1.5 Impacts to Human Safety
The major impact to human safety from helicopter use in the proposed
water sampling procedures would be to the survey crew from an accident.
Becaust horseback riding is a common mode of wilderness travel, the potential
exists for a helicopter to scare a horse and cause injury to humans. During the
decade of the 1970s, the rate of occurrence of rotorcraft accidents decreased
from 30.5/100,000 h flown in 1970 to 11.3 in 1979 [National Transportation Safety
Board (NTSB) 1981a]. Fatal accidents have dropped from 2.5/100,000 h flown in
1970 to 1.5 in 1979. These decreases in the accident rates have been accompanied
by an 11 % annual increase in the number of hours flown in the same period.
Appendix B contains data that offer an assessment of recent historic
helicopter accidents. From these data one can make projections about the
probability of accidents occurring during the proposed helicopter use. No
accident data are known to exist for high-altitude, wilderness area or general
high-altitude helicopter use. Data from the NTSB have been used as a substitute
for these, with the caveat that conditions in the rugged terrain of the
mountainous West are demanding of the most experienced pilot's skills. In the
unlikely event of an accident during the proposed NSWS survey, a chain of other
impacts involving search and rescue and salvage operations would begin and could
involve dangerous mountain rescues by helicopters and/or climbers, as well as the
possibility of forest fire caused by a crash.
The high altitudes and mountainous terrain associated with the proposed
helicopter use involve dangerous flying conditions. Huge and difficult-to-see
downdrafts or tailwinds can be caused by sharp changes in the terrain and sudden
changes in weather (G. Schaller, U.S. Forest Service, Red Lodge, Montana,
personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 12, 1985). Takeoffs and
landings become much more demanding than in level terrain, low-altitude flying
(M. Martin, Office of Aircraft Services, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boise,
Idaho, personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Feb. 7, 1985).
Assuming, conservatively, that it could take two helicopter flight-hours per
lake sampled (about twice the duration for the lakes sampled in the East), and
that there were at most 435 wilderness area lakes to be sampled, the total flight
exposure for the proposed action would be under 1000 h. Using these assumptions
and using calculations based on the binomial distribution (Snedecor and Cochrane
1967), one could project about one chance in ten (or 0.1 accident per 1000 h) that
an accident could occur at some time during the proposed helicopter use in the
NSWS survey program in the western wilderness areas. These estimates, while
conservative, have not been adjusted for the high-altitude nature of the proposed
action. They are consistent with historic accident records maintained by the
Office of Air Services (Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho) who coordinate
the operation of many high altitude helicopter flights (R. Lewis, U.S. Department
of the Interior, Boise, Idaho, personal communication to R. Crowe, EPA, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Jan. 25, 1905) for federal data collection and environmental
monitoring activities.
-------
64
4.1.6 Mitigation Measures
In all cases, there will be close coordination between EPA and FS or other
land management agencies to determine site-specific mitigation measures to
reduce environmental conflicts. To ensure accountability for implementation of
the mitigation measures, the following would be planned. Training for the base
coordinators, duty officers and survey crew would be scheduled in late August and
early September. This schedule would permit all specific mitigation concerns to
be included in the training. Along with this training a reporting system would be
used to ensure that the mitigation measures identified in the NEPA process are
implemented. The helicopter contracts would include conditions which address
mitigation applicable to helicopter pilots and their flight activities. These
conditions could be reviewed at the special contract award meetings. The base
coordinators would ultimately be responsible for implementing the mitigation that
is identified in the NEPA process. Their efforts to adhere to the mitigation
measures would be monitored and coordinated by the EPA regional logistics
manager in Seattle. The following paragraphs identify programmatic areas of
concern.
Wilderness Values
Mitigative measures for helicopter noise would have some effect in
diminishing the impacts of the proposed action on the wilderness* potential for
restoring mind and spirit. A public involvement and awareness plan jointly
implemented by the FS and the EPA would also help in this regard, as discussed in
Sect. 1.4. This information plan should include presentations to environmental
groups; notices of the pending action, to be posted at all entrances to affected
wildernesses; the preparation of news releases for newspapers, radio, and
television; the preparation of articles for state fish and game or conservation
magazines; and the planned cooperation with television to videotape an actual
sampling process. The FS personnel should cooperate in informing all visitors
inquiring about hiking or horseback riding opportunities of the potential conflicts
with their objectives. Where disruption is unavoidable, the FS should explain the
benefits of not having the latter stages of a trip affected.
The involved federal agencies could see the public involvement plan as an
opportunity to educate the public, using the proposed action as just one of ^
constellation of issues and pressures that wilderness managers face: long-term
wilderness values — the natural progression of ecological processes — that coulcj
be affected by acidic deposition at a barely perceptible rate traded off against
the short-term degradation (from helicopter use) of expected wilderness values
for wilderness visitors on a given day (Fig. 4.1-2). The authorization for this
exclusion from wilderness regulations should be presented in a way that makes it
clear to the public that the action is grounded in wilderness law and policy, that it
is consistent with FS practice (in both space and time) and concern for an
enduring wilderness, and that such concern for the long-term wilderness character
necessitates this brief departure from the expected maintenance of immediate^
more tangible wilderness values (Fig. 4.1-1). Hendee et al. (1978) advise that
wilderness management decisions should favor those actions that provide th^
greatest range of future options. The proposed helicopter use could reasonably
justified in this regard.
-------
65
Human Safety
Turbine-powered rotorcraft should be used for their greater safety, higher
reliability, and higher power in difficult high-altitude conditions. All aircraft
should be outfitted with rupture-resistant fuel cells to protect against a fuel spill
in event of an accident (Wimpy Pybus, Federal Aviation Administration,
Washington, D.C., personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 3, 1985;
D. Griffiths, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho, personal
communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Feb. 7, 1985). At the higher elevations of
many of the wilderness lakes, available biomass and oxygen are limited, so
significant fire risk (Sect. 4.1.5) is remote (M. Rogers, Aviation Planning Group,
Aviation and Fire Management Staff, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.,
personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 5, 1984). In gaining access to
these lakes, however, the helicopters will have to fly over substantial forests
during the fire season. As the accident rates show, more accidents occur during
normal cruising than during take-offs or landings (these relationships shift to
takeoffs and landings at the higher altitudes). Using experienced pilots
(experience judged in terms of total flying time, flying time in the rotorcraft to
be used, flying time in high altitude mountainous terrain, and recent flying time in
the rotorcraft to be used) and carefully controlling the amount of time the pilots
are allowed to fly should ail assist in minimizing accidents. As the statistics
suggest, however, there are no guarantees against problems. Decisions regarding
method, timing, and even desirability of removing a crashed helicopter need to be
made on a case-by-case basis (Ed Bloedel, U.S. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
personal communication to C. Petrich, ORNL, Dec. 5, 1984).
The record of the flight crews during the eastern and midwestern portions of
the survey showed good judgment in dealing with a variety of weather conditions
(see Appendix D), and no accidents occurred. While high altitudes and
mountainous terrain were not factors there, other extreme hazards to helicopter
safety were present, such as electrical and telephone wires and other obstacles
associated with high-density populations. In the West, pilots with considerable
experience with an even greater range of weather conditions and unusual winds
associated with mountainous terrain would be needed. Emergency landing sites
should abound at the higher elevations (either water or rock outcrops), but could
present a problem in the more forested areas at lower elevations.
The two biggest dangers to helicopter flights in mountainous terrain at high
altitude are related to pilot (or other human) error and are, therefore, avoidable
(M. Martin, U.S. Department of the Interior, Boise, Idaho, personal communication
to C. Petrich, Feb. 7, 1985). The first is related to carrying too much weight for
the altitude. When carrying more than the maximum allowable grow weight for a
given temperature an altitude ("density altitude"), loss of control can occur on
landing. Pilots need to frequently consult their rotorcraft performance charts and
compare the weight being carried to the current density altitude. External air
temperature forecasts are available from flight centers and from the helicopter
outside air temperature gauge while in flight.
-------
66
The second danger involves the pilot's ability to read and react to
downdrafts and tailwinds while maneuvering in mountainous terrain. While over
water, pilots should be proficient at reading "windstreaks" in the water. Over
land, however, such cues are absent and only pilot reflexes, skills, and experience
can be used to avoid problems with takeoffs and landings.
Extreme weather conditions are possible any month of the year in some of
the wilderness areas in the northern Rocky Mountains, and, after Labor Day,
become problematic on any given day. The Absaroka-Beartooth Wilderness Area,
for example, has treacherous winds at its higher elevations beginning yearly
around the first of September (G. Schaller, Beartooth District, Custer National
Forest, Red Lodge, Montana, personal communication to C. Petrich, Dec. 12,
1984). In the past 11 years, two helicopters have crashed in the Beartooth
Mountains during this time of year. Early morning operations minimize the
dangers of the hazardous winds. Radio communications between helicopters and
between the helicopter and the ground can also be difficult in such terrain.
Disciplined radio check-ins and use of the FS chain of repeaters and crystals will
be necessary for optimal safety preparation. In such terrain the mountain lakes
are often perched or cirque-type lakes; this means they frequently have only one
access and egress direction. The difficulties of gaining altitude when the pilots
may not be able to take advantage of taking off into the wind can be surmounted
only with helicopters having ample power (e.g., the Aerospatiale Lama).
The U.S. Department of the Interior's Office of Air Services in Boise, Idaho,
would train both pilots and EPA sampling crews in safety measures to be followed
for both the sampling and the air safety portions of the program. Such training
would encompass wilderness survival skills.
As a precaution to the helicopter pilot and crew and as a courtesy to all
wilderness users, a possible mitigation measure that could be considered would be
to have each helicopter be identifiable from each side and from below as being in
use by the EPA. Such a designation might avoid misunderstanding as to purposes
and diminish any hostile feelings. Shooting threats have occurred with helicopters
in use in wilderness areas in the past, and an actual incident occurred during the
eastern lake survey outside a wilderness area. Of course, such markings should be
part of a larger EPA/FS user education and awareness program for the lake
sampling to minimize adverse reactions to the presence of helicpoters and
enhance understanding of wilderness management practices.
Recreation
Noise. The main actions that could be taken to reduce helicopter noise
impacts on recreationists in the wilderness areas involve employing elements of
the "Fly Neighborly" program and sensitive preflight planning with the FS. As
mentioned in Sect. 4.1.2, the FAA's advisories regarding the applicability of the
"Fly Neighborly" program in extremely quiet areas needs to be remembered. For
most helicopters of the type likely to be used in Alternative 1, the noise
generated while idling on the water during the sampling process could be reduced
by an average of 10 dB/\ relative to the flight idle (100% RPM) operation by using
the ground idle (67% RPM) mode of operation. This assumes that engine cooling
requirements and ability to maintain station will allow such a reduction.
-------
67
Although shutting off the engine would be the ideal noise reduction strategy,
safety concerns arise about the potential for failure to be able to restart the
engine, and this action is not recommended.
Another aspect of the "Fly Neighborly" program that would be applicable is
the orientation of the helicopter while on the water surface. Each manufacturer
has information on the angle of least intense noise propagation coming from each
model of helicopter. This is frequently the nose of the helicopter. Positioning the
nose (or its low acoustical energy equivalent) toward the most sensitive camping
areas, trails, fishing areas, etc., is the recommended action while maintaining the
desired location for the sampling crew to do its work. Reductions of 6 to 10 dB^
are possible through use of this simple technique. Water acts as a hard surface to
noise, reflecting its energy considerable distances compared to noise propogated
over trees or grass where a 4 dB^ reduction would typically be achievable.
Reductions of 3 to 5 dB^ would be possible through using the manufacturer's
"Fly Neighborly" cruising speed for all flying over any wilderness territory.
Techniques for planning flight paths similar to those used by airport planners in
locating approach corridors should be employed to decrease the noise impacts to
recreationists (Schomer and Homans 1976). As an example, the FS could provide
graphic data or rough estimates of trail and campsite usage such as those in
Fig. 4.1-2 for each wilderness area for the time of year in question. Flight paths
that avoid critical use areas could greatly reduce the noise (and visual) impact of
Alternative 1. This mitigation measure would provide for the least impact to the
most wilderness visitors. It would work against those visitors who have
specifically sought solitude on the less traveled trails and camping areas. These
are just the people who may be most sensitive to any intrusion at all in the
wilderness. The proposed helicopter use itself, by being scheduled in the fall, may
cause more of a sense of intrusion to all wilderness visitors who wish to go to the
area, and perhaps particularly to the more popular areas, in the off-season when
more solitude is expected. EPA might require the contractor to use a 4-bladed
main rotor helicopter. This would make no difference in the actual dB^ noise
level, but the noise is of a type that is perceived to be less of an annoyance in
that it reduces the familiar "blade slap" sound.
Most helicopter pilots follow landmarks such as rivers while navigating.
This would not be the best plan in wilderness areas because trails and campsites
also follow water courses. Flightpaths located on the other side of ridges from
heavily used trails could reduce noise considerably. Thus, it would be necessary to
define appropriate flight corridors in advance. Through proper planning,
crisscrossing of the wilderness should be able to be avoided. Corridors should be
designed and agreed to in three dimensions, not merely two. Pilots should be
requested to fly higher (2000 ft above terrain) over wilderness territory than they
normally would choose. The FAA recommends 2000 ft as the minimum altitude
for flying over populated areas (FAA Advisory Circular 91-368). Transition
points, where changes from ascent or descent to level flight occur, can be
discussed in advance, with the understanding that local wind and weather
conditions will have an impact on the pilot's decisions regarding these objectives.
To the extent that air photographs could be used to gather site information about
each lake, flight time over each lake could be reduced.
-------
68
Hiking and horseback riding. The scheduling of the proposed helicopter
flights only during weekdays would eliminate conflicts with many recreationists of
all types who seek short, weekend wilderness experiences. Dominant wilderness
use occurs on weekends, and, judging from data on the Desolation Wilderness, the
weekend peaks are more pronounced (although of a lower magnitude) in the fall
(Hendee et al. 1978). In wildernesses more remote from population centers, such
fall weekend peaks may be less pronounced. In wildernesses noted for their
hunting, summer use still clearly predominates over fall visitation.
It should be noted that the impacts on some wilderness visitors who have
specifically waited until the "off-season" weekday in order to gain more solitu.le
for their experience would be greater than impacts on the more "casual"
wilderness recreationist who visits during the more popular periods.
Hunting. The EPA should coordinate their helicopter visitation plans with
the FS and state game or wildlife agencies so as to try to avoid conflicts with
general or special hunting seasons (e.g., avoiding opening days of hunting season
which are especially critical). Some states do not set these dates until spring, so
making specific suggestion here is not possible. Bighorn seasons in the Wind River
(Wyoming) and Beartooth (Montana) mountains have been identified as being
particularly sensitive areas.
The comments on planning the helicopter flightpaths in three dimensions to
avoid the more popular trails and campsites also may apply to the avoidance of
critical wildlife trails. Again, coordination with the FS and state game agencies
should provide the necessary advice.
A. 1.7 Consequences to the Survey Objectives
Consequences of any of the alternatives to the NSWS are of environmental
significance if they positively or negatively affect the ability of the EPA to
formulate an appropriate policy to control acidic deposition, and, indirectly, the
impacts attributable thereto. At this time it is not possible to predict what, if
any, level of control will be appropriate. However, it is relevant that the NSWS
management team has received input from the EPA staff charged with assessing
the acidic deposition situation concerning what hypotheses should be verifiable
with NSWS data; these hypotheses are central to an understanding of the
acidification phenomenon (Bennett 1985).
In this section and in Sects. 4.2.7, 4.3.7, and 4.4.6, the EA examines the
ability of the NSWS to provide relevant and adequate data to the EPA assessment
staff under each alternative; the presumption is made that this ability is directly
pertinent to the ability of the Agency to formulate appropriate policy.
Alternative I in this EA is identical to the survey protocol used successfully in the
East and Midwest in 1984. In the East and Midwest, most of the lakes to be
sampled were in fact sampled; specified holding times between sampling and
processing/analysis were met. Analysis of the survey data from the East and
Midwest is now under way.
The proposed survey is aimed at developing an understanding of the threats
to various regions in the country of which the present wilderness system is a
sensitive barometer for the West; the approach being used is not appropriate for
-------
69
understanding any one individual wilderness area. That a threat of uncertain
dimension and time frame exists to an entire system of 88.6 million acres should
in no way make Alternative 1 less deserving of consideration for an exclusion by
those responsible for administering a National Wilderness Preservation System
than would a specific threat to a specific area (Sect. 3.1.2).
The proposed NSWS survey is designed to collect data to help develop
understanding and policies that can be used to minimize or eliminate the damages
that are, or could occur, due to acidic deposition on natural systems. A long-term
benefit to wilderness (and other) areas should be the outcome (Fig. 4.1-1). With
the principal goal of wilderness preservation being the maintenance (and, if need
be, the restoration) of long-term ecological processes (Hendee et al. 1978,
Zaslowsky 1984), there is little conflict between the final objectives of the
proposed survey and wilderness policies. That acidic deposition could interfere
drastically with ecological processes — or, in the language of the Wilderness Act,
"trammel" those processes — is becoming clear from some studies of the high
mountain west (Sect. 1.2) and other locations across the country and in Europe.
Wilderness values of all types are threatened when one can observe the types of
damage possibly attributable to acidic deposition in the forests around Mt.
Mitchell in North Carolina or in New York's Adirondack Mountains.
Under the provisions of the Clean Air Act (42 USC 1857 et seq.), federal
land managers of Class I areas (i.e., wilderness areas and national parks) have the
responsibility to protect AQRVs threatened by new sources or modifications to
existing sources. Those AQRVs identified by the FS include visibility, flora,
fauna, soils, and water quality (Haddow 1984). Effects considered might be direct
and immediate or indirect and long-term, as in the case of acidic deposition.
Effects identified by the FS include changes in pH, total alkalinity, and metal and
other ion concentrations of surface water; and changes in growth, mortality,
reproduction and productivity of flora and fauna (Haddow 1984). The FS and other
land managers will identify adverse effects of new and modified air pollution
sources on wilderness areas by comparing measured or predicted changes with
levels of acceptable change (LAC). The LACs for the various effects have not
been identified because pollution data are lacking for wilderness areas (Haddow
1984). The information from the Phase I survey of the NSWS on susceptibility of
lakes to acidification will help to remedy this deficiency.
The use of randomization at some point in the selection schema (i.e., within
strata in the present case) is of paramount importance to the statistical validity
of the results. Random sampling at some level is the only way to obtain a valid,
model-free probability sample from which valid regional estimates can be
obtained.
The choice of sample size is of major importance in the success of the
survey. A full evaluation of the consequences of taking 50 samples per stratum
cannot be given here, but qualitative assessment of these consequences can be
outlined. In assessing sample size, two questions may be asked: is the sample
larger than needed to achieve the objectives, or is the sample so small that the
results will be of little use? In the present case, the first question is highly
unlikely, but the second may be of great concern. The answer can be sought only
by dealing with the first objective of the survey; namely, what proportion or
percentage of lakes in an area (region, subregion, or stratum) can be classified in
-------
70
some particular manner (e.g., sensitive to acidification, currently acidified, or low
alkalinity, pH, or high aluminum, etc.)? For simplicity, the discussion is confined
for the moment to the level of individual strata. Also, the criteria for
determining the categories (i.e., low alkalinity, sensitivity, acidification, and so
forth) are not necessary to examine the question of sample size. Additional
details on the material presented here can be found in many statistical texts.
Cochran (1977) gives a particularly useful and thorough treatment in a book
devoted primarily to survey statistics.
In answering the question posed above by the primary survey objective, the
sample lakes will be classified in one of two categories, either positive (sensitive,
acidified, etc.) or not. Hence, the results can be expressed in terms of binomial
proportions. Confidence intervals for estimates of "how many in a category" are
widest when the proportion in the category of interest is 0.5 (50%). Therefore,
even though we may not know what proportion to expect, by using 50% we can
derive a worst-case (conservative) estimate; all other combinations produce more
narrow confidence intervals. Use of binomial theory shows that, in this case, and
for a sample size of 50, one could be 95% certain that the one-sided confidence
interval (either upper or lower) will not exceed 0.12 (12%).
Because strata are already based on assumptions about alkalinity, acidity,
etc., it is unlikely that the actual or estimated proportions will be 0.5, except
perhaps in alkalinity class (stratum) 2. That is, in class 1 (low alkalinity lakes),
probably most, 0.8 (80%) for example, would be sensitive. In this case, confidence
limits approach +0.10 (10%) of the mean. Such a value is reasonable for field
surveys of this sort.
With simple random sampling, this analysis could be extended to estimates
for the subregion or region. With the stratified sampling plan, however, the
precision of a regional estimate may be greater than with simple randorr\
sampling. If the actual characteristics of the lakes within strata, in terms of
alkalinity, pH, etc., are in fact highly correlated with the characteristics on which
stratification was based, then the proportions of lakes within the categories of
interest are likely to be highly separated; e.g., in class 1, 80% sensitive, in class 2,
50% sensitive; and in class 3, 20% sensitive. Under these or similar
circumstances, it is likely that the confidence interval for regional estimates will
be somewhat reduced. For estimates that combine strata, the increase in sample
size will automatically increase precision. For example, combining four strata
would halve the one-sided confidence interval. Thus, the sample size appears
reasonable for making estimates of proportions both for strata and for regions.
Finally, the NSWS QA approach has been defined, documented and
implemented in the NSWS to obtain the best possible data to support the survey
objectives (Sect. 2.1.4). The utility of the approach has already been
demonstrated in the eastern and midwestern portions of the survey. Any changes
in design are likely to affect the validity and integrity of data collected and open
them to question and possible challenge.
4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts
There will be no cumulative impacts to wilderness areas from other phases
of the NSWS because these activities will not involve the use of helicopters and
-------
71
lakes outside wilderness areas will, where possible, be selected. In terms of
cumulative impacts to wilderness areas from future proposals to use helicopters
by other researchers or organizations, this alternative could be considered a
precedent for authorizing helicopter use for temporary environmental sampling in
wilderness areas. What would characterize the proposed use of helicopters as a
perhaps unique exclusion is that no individual wilderness area is identified as being
specifically threatened, but a definite threat (acidic deposition affecting forest
and aquatic ecosystems) of uncertain magnitude and timeframe exists to the
entire National Wilderness Preservation System. The rationale for any subsequent
authorizations would need to include the concept of the sampling being carried
out as a response to a general threat to the long term, enduring wilderness
character of the system rather than to any particular area. As such, the
precedent established with authorization of the proposed alternative should be
readily differentiated from other requests for helicopter use in environmental
monitoring requests which, while perhaps dependent on a wilderness environment,
seek only relief from problems of efficiency, convenience, or economy. The best
way to manage actions to avoid the connotation of "precedence" would be to have
all decisions be visibly derivable from policy. The FS manual (USDA undated) has
established policies that permit the use of helicopters under stated criteria. A
reasonable argument could be made that Alternative 1 is consistent with those
criteria and, therefore, neither establishes or contributes to any sense of
precedence.
4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 (USE OF GROUND ACCESS ONLY)
4.2.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values
Wilderness values would be minimally affected by conducting the survey
through this alternative. If less-than-adequate data were collected, to the extent
that such information impeded the scientific interpretation of the results, the
long-term wilderness character could possibly be negatively affected. Choosing
to make national air quality decisions without sufficient, sufficiently accurate, or
sufficiently representative data could allow more, or more rapid, acidic deposition
impacts on given wilderness areas, the general wilderness system, and/or areas
outside of wildernesses throughout the country.
Interaction of the survey crews (estimated to be 60 teams of at least 4
people) with other wilderness visitors (total number cannot be estimated without a
detailed evaluation of data on each wilderness area) may enhance the public
understanding of wilderness management problems and threats to enduring
wilderness characteristics due to off-site human actions. Some wilderness
visitors, on the other hand, could be repulsed to be in the wilderness and have to
deal, however briefly, with people trying to correct civilization's problems — that
may be part of what they went to the wilderness to escape. Observing an
adjacent party fishing at a lake can be much less distracting than observing
several people unloading a raft, rowing to the middle of a lake, busying
themselves with strange-looking scientific equipment, and then returning and
preparing preserved samples before packing up horses and leaving. To some
visitors these actions may arouse a healthy curiosity; to others they may simply
be an annoyance to their solitude and tranquility. Hammitt (1982) found that the
"most important dimension of wilderness solitude to users involves being in a
-------
72
natural environment that is removed from manmade intrusions and thereby offers
a sense of tranquility and peacefulness."
Using Fig. 4.1-1 to portray the long-term vs short-term impacts to
wilderness values under this alternative. Zone "A" would now be lower on the
diagram than with Alternative 1. There would still be some close proximity to the
limit of acceptable change due to the helicopter activity being focused
immediately outside the wilderness area boundaries (Sect 4.2.2) and the large
number of survey crews on the trails.
4.2.2 Impacts to Recreation
Sole use of ground-access surveying techniques would increase trail and
campsite use during a time of year when wilderness visitors might reasonably
expect more solitude and tranquility. The size of each pack train and number of
crew members needed on each team would generally be compatible with the size
of other parties visiting wildernesses. Wilderness visitors could be negatively
affected by the survey crew camping near them at lakes, but presumably no more
so than by other ordinary visitors. Hammitt (1982) and Hendee et al. (1978) report
that privacy from persons in other parties, particularly large parties, camping in
the same general area is an important and highly desired attribute of the
wilderness experience for many visitors.
Taking pack horses into the wilderness areas is, of course, a common means
of wilderness travel. Some visitors object to the damage pack trains cause to
trails: trampling and feeding on surrounding vegetation, introducing seeds of
domestic feed grains, fouling the trail with their wastes, expanding the trail
width, increasing the trail's depth and erosion potential, increasing soil
compaction in tethering areas, and creating the need for sawing through fallen
timbers that may otherwise be stepped over or avoided. Hendee et al. (197Q)
reported that wilderness visitors can better tolerate higher use densities when the
contacts involve hikers rather than horse users. Additional physical damage would
occur in places where the survey crew would need to gain access to lakes where
no trail exists. The survey crew and its pack train would create a temporary new
disturbance to the landscape; recovery rates in alpine environments would be
difficult to estimate.
Because of generally reduced visitation by most wilderness users (except
hunters) in the fall, conflicts between the EPA sampling crews and other
wilderness visitors for backcountry permits would be limited. In those wilderness
areas where hunting season would be under way, the potential for conflict would
exist.
Under this alternative, helicopter activity would be concentrated at landing
sites immediately outside the wilderness area boundaries where samples would be
brought by riders. While awaiting the arrival of riders, the pilots would be likely
to leave their engines in a ground idle mode. The duration of this wait is difficult
to predict as it would be dependent on the ability of the riders and pilots to
communicate and coordinate pick-up times. In most circumstances, the
helicopter engine would be audible for some distance into the wilderness are^
This "audibility footprint" would, to a large extent, encompass the periphery of
the wilderness area where at least some trails are present. Because most
-------
73
wilderness area users do not take trips longer than two to three days in duration,
it is conceivable that the Alternative 2 action might impact more numbers of
wilderness visitors (especially those who rarely travel farther than five to seven
miles from the boundaries) than the Alternative 1 action would. The remote area
wilderness visitor would be less likely to be affected by Alternative 2 except at
the beginning or end of a trip. As noted in Sect. 4.1, disturbances at the end of a
trip could be most disruptive of all wilderness intrusions.
4.2.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endangered Species
Wildlife
Under this alternative, the effects of noise on wildlife considered in
Sect. 4.1.3 would be eliminated. Although the possibility of human contact with
wildlife would increase, its nature would be no different from that already
occurring. Thus, no significant impacts to wildlife would be likely under this
alternative.
Endangered and Threatened Species
As with other wildlife, adverse impacts under this alternative would be
negligible. Proper coordination with local wildlife officials will ensure that
survey teams are aware of potential interactions with endangered species and of
the proper responses to take in the event of an encounter (Sect. 4.2.7).
4.2.4 Impacts to Water Bodies
Given that sampling of lakes under this alternative would be accomplished
from an inflatable boat, rather than a helicopter, no impacts on water bodies
would be expected. Any chemical reagents or standards needed in the field could
be left on land, rather than carried in the boat. Any overnight stays would be
carried out in a manner protective of sanitation, to minimize possible water
pollution (see Sect. 4.2.6 for discussion of mitigation measures).
4.2.5 Impacts to Human Safety
This alternative involves having many people sampling high-altitude lakes
during the fall when weather conditions are very uncertain. Sampling teams could
be isolated by early fall blizzards and be subjected to severe weather conditions.
The sampling of extremely cold, alpine lakes through use of inflatable rafts would
be dangerous. Leaks or punctures due to snags, rocks, or ice could cause the
survey crew to have to swim to shore. In extremely cold lakes, the human body
can tolerate less than ten-minutes' Immersion before severe hypothermia
conditions interfere with judgment and physical performance. An accident in the
middle of a large lake could, therefore, cause serious problems. Handling some of
the reagents used in the chemical analyses in a non-laboratory environment would
create some hazards to the survey crew.
Accidents involving horses being ridden or led through rocky, mountainous
terrain are not common, but a possibility. The use of experienced wranglers and
guides would presumably minimize the likelihood of any problems.
-------
74
4.2.6 Mitigation Measures
Plans for developing site-specific migitation measures would be similar to
those described for Alternative 1 (Sect. 4.1.6). Stock animals need to be properly
cared for and tethered at campsites. The pack train leader and FS would be
familiar with site-specific regulations. Feed might have to be packed in for seme
sampling destinations, and pack animals kept some distance from the camp. The
survey crew would need to select sites (1) in an area with few, or no, other camp
sites and (2) as far as possible from other visitors. Keeping quiet and using the
most appropriate wilderness camping etiquette would also be appropriate in these
areas.
For safety reasons, life preservers and wet suits would be needed for use in
the lake sampling operation. Clothing for rapidly warming a hypothermia victim
should be available.
Only experienced packers with local knowledge should be used, and FS
recommendations should be solicited. Forest Service officials should attempt to
adjust their permit policies for backcountry users, or possibly consider EPA crews
as a separate category of users, so that (1) the crews are not in the wilderness
areas during hunting season, or (2) if present, the crews do not compete for
permits normally available to other users.
Riders and helicopter pilots should carry radios to coordinate their
rendezvous time. Effective coordination would minimize helicopter noise in the
vicinity of the landing site.
4.2.7 Consequences to the Survey Objectives
The introduction to Sect. 4.1.7 explained the rationale linking the NSWS to
the formulation of appropriate policy by EPA to control acidic deposition and the
impacts thereof. If an alternative method of conducting the survey could
positively or negatively affect the quality of the survey results, then an
environmental impact may tentatively be attributed to the alternative. This
section examines four aspects of Alternative 2 that could have a bearing on the
quality of the Survey results:
1. Would the sample design be changed? That is, would there be a
bias in the data such that the survey could not be used to
characterize with a known statistical confidence conditions in
areas of concern in the United States?
2. Would changes in sampling and analytical methods, or deletions
of certain variables, fail to provide data, or provide data of
insufficient precision or accuracy, increasing probability that the
survey would not meet the needs of the EPA assessment staff?
3. Given that the NSWS involves coordination of a major scientific
undertaking with logistical challenges - e.g., a large staff spread
out over many hundreds of miles all attempting to follow strict
protocols; unpredictable weather conditions; sometimes
temperamental equipment - would an alternative increase the
-------
75
probability of failure of the NSWS? Would deadlines not be met,
protocols not be followed, equipment not function, lakes not be
sampled?
A. Would an alternative result in some lakes that physically could
not be reached - no trails over which equipment could be
carried, or terrain requiring technical climbing skills?
Sampling Design
The proposed sample design for this alternative would be identical to that
for Alternative 1. However, logistic difficulties discussed below make it likely
that fewer lakes than intended in wilderness areas would be sampled. Although
the number of lakes that could not be reached is unknown at this stage in
planning, information on a few wilderness areas suggests that as many as 20% of
the selected lakes could be eliminated from the sample. Such failures would
introduce additional errors into the sample estimates, termed noncoverage by
Cochran (1977). If all or some of the noncovered items (inaccessible lakes in this
case) have certain common features (e.g., low alkalinity), then bias will be
introduced into the sample estimates. Once again, consideration of this aspect is
most simply approached through consideration of proportions (Sect. 4.1.7,
objective 1 of the survey). Again also, a rigorous treatment is precluded here but
some indications are possible. Cochran (1977) illustrates how to calculate
conservative confidence limits when the degree of nonconverage is known only
from the sample and when the characteristics of the noncovered units are
unknown. Applying the method to a series of hypothetical lakes in a stratum (e.g.,
class I lakes, 5 of those which are in wilderness are lost due to inaccessibility, and
80% of sample lakes prove to be sensitive by established criteria) suggests that, if
more than about 10 lakes per stratum were lost due to inaccessibility, confidence
limits would increase to more than 0.50 (50%) of the mean. It is possible, of
course, that the limits would in fact turn out to be less, but there is no objective
way to judge in advance. Similarly, results given by Birnbaum and Sirken (1950)
suggest that, to maintain 95% confidence limits at +12% of the mean at a sample
size of 50 would permit only 2 lakes per stratum to be inaccessible.
The situation worsens when it comes to describing distributions and
comparing their properties. With continuous data, any sizable proportion of
noncoverage (e.g., 15%) usually makes it impossible to assign useful confidence
limits to the mean from sample results. "We are left in the position of relying on
some guess about the size of the bias, without data to substantiate the guess"
(Cochran 1977).
As a result of these and related considerations, EPA would not sample a
stratum if it knew in advance that fewer than AO samples could be taken (D.
Brakke, Western Washington University, personal communication to 3. W. Webb,
ORNL, Feb. I, 1985). If, for some reason, fewer than 50 lakes were sampled
without previous knowledge, EPA would lump samples across strata or take other
action to improve the statistical reliability of the estimates before undertaking
statistical analysis.
-------
76
In the western pilot study, only 38 lakes could be sampled by horseback, out
of an intended 50, as a result of logistic difficulties associated with horse travei
(see further discussion under "Logistics" below). With the narrow time frame and
unpredictability of the weather, similar problems could easily occur during the
proposed survey. Any failure to sample selected lakes in wilderness would
decrease the size and randomness of the sample as described above.
Sampling and Chemical Analysis
If access to the lakes is via horseback rather than via helicopter, most
water-quality variables would have to be sampled and analyzed using different
protocols that are untested in terms of meeting the NSWS DQO's. Modifications
to the proposed methods were described in Sect. 2.2.3. The following discussion
addresses the programmatic implications of such modifications.
Sampling via horseback rather than via helicopter would rule out obtaining
low-elevation aerial photographs of the sampled lakes at the time of sampling
(Sect. 2.2.2). If there were any subsequent confusion over which lakes had been
sampled, it would not be possible to resolve this by consulting aerial photographs;
this could represent a quality-assurance problem of unknown significance.
If the filtration and MIBK aluminum extraction is done in the field, rather
than at the field base laboratory, there would be analytical and logistical
advantages and disadvantages. This modification would involve certain risks (the
reagents can not be allowed to freeze; filtration pressure can not be as well
controlled as in the field base laboratory; filtration time might be lengthy in some
cases; control over hazardous reagents such as 8-hydroxyquinoline and MIBK
would be less in the field than in the laboratory setting; there is an increased
chance of contamination (e.g., from dust) given less-than-ideal field conditions
relative to those found in a field base laboratory). Also, as the extraction
procedure involves pH adjustment (Sect. 2.1.3), field extraction would also require
that pH be measured in the field using portable equipment, the difficulty of which
is described below. However, in comparison to the relatively short holding time
(4-6 h between collection and extraction) specified by the NSWS protocol, the
sample, once extracted Into the MIBK, could be refrigerated for up to six months
without significant degradation [C. Driscoll, Syracuse University, New York,
personal communication with R. Cushman, ORNL, Dec. 10, 1984], although the
NSWS protocol calls for analysis within seven days because loss of the volatile
MIBK from the extracted sample could result in an erroneously high concentration
as measured (E. Meier, EPA, Las Vegas, personal communication with
R. Cushman, ORNL, Jan. 14, 1985). Extraction immediately (within 1-2 h)
following collection would be preferable to the existing NSWS protocol (which
calls for extraction within 4-6 h and in practice is completed within 12 h) in terms
of minimizing sample degradation before processing (Sect. 2.1.3 for a discussion
of sample degradation in aluminum determinations). The overall quantitative
effect of this modification has not yet been defined.
Aluminum extractions other than in a controlled laboratory setting have
been proposed and used by other researchers. The provisional protocol of the EPA
Program for Long-Term Monitoring of Surface Waters in the United States
(Powers and Allum 1984) originally recommended filtering and extracting
aluminum samples in the field, although the NSWS procedures described in
-------
77
Sect. 2.1.3 are now expected to be used for the Long-Term Monitoring portion of
the NSWS (USEPA 1984a; D. Brakke, Western Washington Univ., personal
communication with R. Cushman, ORNL, Feb. 14, 1985). Field extractions for
aluminum have been performed by the USGS for several years (O. Bricker, USGS,
Reston, Virginia, personal communication with R. Cushman, ORNL, Dec. 11, 1984;
and V. Kennedy, USGS, Menlo Park, California, Dec. 17, 1984). However, the
field conditions encountered by previous researchers have probably not been as
severe as those likely to be faced by the NSWS sampling teams (e.g., severe
weather, access by horseback, severe time constraints, lack of shelter).
Kennedy et al. (1974) compared "field" (in a motel room) and laboratory
extractions (filtered) of aluminum, working with concentrations of from 1 to 13
ug/L. They found that the coefficient of variation of aluminum concentration was
10% with the "field" extractions and 13% with the laboratory extractions. The
"field" conditions of Kennedy et al. were probably intermediate between the
lakeside and field base laboratory conditions, but these results suggest that
precision might not necessarily suffer if the NSWS lake samples were filtered and
extracted in the field (rather than in a field base laboratory), without access to a
laminar flow hood. However, it is not possible to answer all concerns related to
sample contamination and accuracy of the data at this time. If precise, accurate
measurements of monomeric aluminum are not available, the NSWS would fail to
provide data on what is now seen as an important aspect of lake acidification.
If the filtration and M1BK extraction for aluminum is done in the field and
the sample refrigerated, the necessity of immediate delivery to the field lab of
the sample for extractable aluminum determination would be lessened.
Nevertheless, the need for prompt analysis of pH and DIC would remain. Two
standard references, Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes (USEPA
1983), and Standard Methods (APHA, AWWA, and WPCF 1980), recommend that
sample pH be measured "as soon as possible" and "immediately." The syringe
sample, refrigerated and isolated from the atmosphere, is analyzed at the field
lab within 12 h under the first alternative (Sect. 2.1.3). Although the cold storage
temperature and isolation from the atmosphere of the syringe samples will
minimize sample deterioration (discussed in Sect. 2.1.3), any further delay could
jeopardize the accuracy of the pH and DIC data.
Jeopardizing the accuracy of the pH determination at the field base
laboratory could require increased reliance on the field analysis to assess in-situ
lake pH. A number of researchers (Galloway et al. 1979, Koch and Marinenko
1983, McQuaker et al. 1983, Turk 1984b) have noted the difficulties of measuring
the pH in dilute waters. Turk (1984a) estimated precision of pH measurements of
three dilute lakes in the Flat Tops Wilderness Area, Colorado, using
battery-operated pH meters transported by horseback, similar to the alternative
sampling method proposed in Sect. 2.2. He found that the standard deviation of
pH measurements was 0.07 units. Turk (1984b) also estimated the potential
accuracy possible with field equipment by comparing calculated pH of known
solutions with pH determined in the laboratory with field equipment;
measurement error (mean of 12 and 34 measurements) was 0.05 and less than 0.01
units, respectively, for the two known solutions. However, the accuracy and
precision achieved by Turk required a rather lengthy procedure to eliminate
cross-contamination and maximize equilibration; it is unlikely that this procedure
would be consistent with the time constraints of the NSWS. An EPA report
-------
78
(USEPA 1984g, p. 4-56) indicates that accuracy and precision of field pH
measurements may be at best + 0.05 units, compared with + 0.02 units for
laboratory measurements. McQuaker et al. (1983) concluded that accuracy of
field measurements of pH in dilute waters was unlikely to be better than 0.1-0.2
units, an order of magnitude worse than is possible in a laboratory. Thus, it is
difficult to predict the accuracy or precision of pH measurements possible under
field conditions, but there is evidence that routine measurements in the field
would not be as precise or accurate as measurements at the field base laboratory.
Furthermore, because pH measurements in the field could not be accompanied by
a simultaneous DIC determination, it would not be possible to quality assure the
data using the pH-DIC-alkalinity check described in Sect. 2.1.3.
In summary, modifications to the proposed sampling and analytical
procedures for extractable aluminum, DIC, and pH are possible. It is not possible
to predict quantitatively the effect on the precision and accuracy of the data, but
it is likely that the quality of the data would suffer. Without the simultaneous
DIC determination, the NSWS researchers would be unable to assess the accuracy
of the pH data.
Several factors would tend to make sampling and analysis more difficult
under this alternative than under the helicopter-access alternative. First,
calibration of the Hydrolabs (performed immediately before and after the
helicopter trip under the first alternative) would be a problem in the field, in
terms of freshness of standard solutions and/or time interval between calibration
and field measurement: transporting CO2 cylinders by horseback into the
wilderness areas would be required for pH calibration. Second, obtaining data of
maximum precision and accuracy from field equipment under conditions more
difficult than those found in the field base laboratories (e.g., poor lighting,
extremes in temperature and humidity) would be a challenge to the survey
personnel. For example, Turk (1984b) noted the difficulty of measuring pH under
extreme weather conditions; moisture in the electrode connections was cited as a
particular concern. Similarly, the western pilot study (USEPA I984f)
demonstrated the problems with attempting precise sampling and analytical work
given severe weather and inadequate shelter and lighting. Third, the threat of
sample contamination would always be a problem in the field. Fourth, sample
degradation is a threat to data quality, and while measures would be employed to
preserve samples (refrigeration, isolation from the atmosphere), analysis "as soon
as possible" is desired, and any deviation from this could adversely affect the
survey results. The possible effect of shaking on sample integrity as a result of
ground transport is another factor that would need to be evaluated in a
comparability study.
Quality assurance
Each alternative to the methods proposed for the NSWS involves a higher
degree of risk in terms of data quality, and it cannot be predicted whether the
data collected would be satisfactory in terms of precision, accuracy, freedom
from contamination, and comparability. If access by ground is required, the EPa
would have to examine the issue of changes in data quality by sampling some lakes
both by helicopter access and by horseback and comparing the data. Any
modifications to the NSWS methodology at this point would introduce the
undesirable element of changing methods midway through the study; this is
-------
79
something to avoid in any scientific endeavor, and for the NSWS would jeopardize
the ability to make inter-region comparisons.
Sampling via horseback can increase sample exposure to dust and dirt which
results in contamination for sodium, aluminum, and other parameters. It is
anticipated that this contamination could be as high as 0.5 ppm for sodium and
100-200 ppm for aluminum. Such levels of contamination could eliminate
important data from the decision-making process.
If the number of sampling teams or the number of sampling days were
increased, the number of field duplicates would have to be increased accordingly.
These duplicates are used to estimate overall precision of the sampling and
analytical process (Sect. 2.1.A). If Alternative 2 is used, additional duplicate
samples will have to be collected to compare precision between the two
approaches. If the precision of samples collected via horseback is significantly
different from the current schema, the data may not be comparable and may be
invalidated for the objectives of the survey. In addition, a more time consuming
approach, such as sampling via horseback, would require additional duplicate
samples to cover the extended time period.
Any change in the current design and sampling approach for the lake survey
would greatly weaken the confidence in the data quality, and some data would be
likely to be invalidated as a result of these changes. A change to horseback or
ground sampling teams could have a significant impact on the data and might
result in lack of adequate, accepatable data to meet the objectives of the western
portion of the lake survey. As discussed above, such changes in design can, and
probably will, affect the validity and integrity of the QA approach. To
summarize, the following QA problems are likely to occur:
1. Data across sampling teams, field base stations, and regions
might not be comparable. Thus key objectives of the NSWS
might not be achieved.
2. More complicated logistics would be likely to reduce or
eliminate the ability of the survey to provide comparable data of
acceptable quality.
3. Increased staff requirements would mean more personnel
involved in the sampling process and a higher probability that
problems would arise that result in data that are not comparable
or are of unacceptable quality.
A. Sample contamination would be much more likely to occur and
would be likely to result in invalid data and loss of key objectives
of the survey.
5. Regardless, additional QA and data management cost would be
incurred just to verify that the problems did occur (i.e.,
additional costs to find out that the data could not be used).
-------
80
6. There would be a good chance that holding times would be
exceeded. Holding times have been established for the NSWS as
a whole and need to be met. Anyone opposed to the conclusions
of the survey or subsequent regulatory actions could use the
established holding times (if they are exceeded) in a court action
to challenge data quality.
Logistics
Previous experience. To determine the feasibility of gaining access to
lakes by horse or foot, a pilot study to sample 50 lakes in western wilderness
areas was undertaken by EPA and the FS during the fall (mid September to mid
October) of 1984. Only 38 lakes could be sampled during the three-week study;
12 in the Uintas Wilderness Area, Utah, 20 in the Weminuche Wilderness Area,
Colorado, and 6 in the Cloud Peak Wilderness Area, Wyoming.
A major blizzard occurred which closed trails in the Cloud Peak Wilderness
Area and caused delays in other areas. Access roads to trailheads were also in
poor condition during this time. Equipment transported by pack horses was
damaged in some instances; a Hydrolab and Van Dorn sampler were damaged, and
a rubber boat was punctured. The sheer bulk of the sampling gear was found to
be a burden on the horses, and packing and unpacking the horses was
time-consuming.
Problems were encountered with sampling from rubber boats. Weather
conditions gave the crews problems in launching the boats, and the presence of
thin layers of ice which formed in the shallows caused concern about punctures
to the boat and subsequent sinking. Once the samples were collected,
preparation of the samples either in a tent or outside was difficult, and the
samples were subject to contamination from exposure to the elements. In most
cases the holding time requirements of the NSWS were met, but extractable
aluminum and DlC were not measured.
Even with careful planning, it was difficult to sample more than one lake
per day. On the average, one and a half lakes could be sampled each day, with a
maximum number of three. Some lakes are more than a day's ride from a
wilderness boundary, and some lakes have no trails to them, making access by
horseback impossible. In addition, the sampling design of the pilot study selected
lakes which were clustered to minimize travel time among lakes. This approach
would not be applicable to the larger survey and more transit time would be
needed to reach the lakes involved.
If helicopter access is not possible, then aerial photographs could only be
obtained from fixed-wing aircraft flying at least 3000 ft above the areas; these
photographs are a QA measure in that they document exactly which lakes have
been sampled, in case of later confusion (USEPA 1984d).
Analysis of Feasibility. To assess the feasibility of reaching the selected
lakes by horseback, five wilderness areas (one each from five FS regions) were
chosen, and local district rangers were contacted. Information was gathered on
the distance from trailhead to lake, condition of trail, and expected time
required for access. Table 4.2-1 summarizes this information.
-------
Table 4.2-1. Accessibility by horseback to NSWS sample lakes in selected wilderness areas*
Wilderness area
Lake name
Likelihood of
getting samples
to field lab
in 8 h
Comments on accessibility by horseback
Mt. Evans8
(Colorado)
Pasaytenb
(Washington)
Bridger
(Wyoming)
Chicago Lakes Probable 2 wiles from road
No name Probable 0.5 mile from road (no existing trail)
Jerry Lakes Uncertain** 7 miles (last 2 on foot) from trailhead
Lake of the Improbable 15 miles (last 2 on foot) from trailhead
Pines
White Lakes Improbable 21-22 miles from trailhead
Sheep Lake Improbable 22 miles from trailhead; also a possible 5-6 h hike on foot to
alternate access point in Canada
Black Lake Probable 4 miles from trailhead
Lease Lake Improbable 21 miles from trailhead (last 5-6 miles may be impassable
to stock because of downed timber on abandoned trail)
No name Improbable 24.5 miles from trailhead in Canada; 37.5-38.5 miles to trailhead
in U.S. (last 3.5 miles on foot)
Crescent Lake Probable 10 miles from trailhead
Kevin Lake Improbable** 11 miles from trailhead, approximately half on foot; poor access
by horseback
Shirley Lake Probable approximately 5 miles from trailhead
Gadsby Lake Uncertain** approximately 6 miles from trailhead; last mile on foot
-------
Table 4.2-1. (continued)
Wilderness area
Lake name
Likelihood of
getting samples
to field lab
in 8 h
Bridger
(Wyoming)
Palmer Lake
Borum Lake
Bridger Lake
Little Seneca
Lake
Spider Lake
Barnes Lake
Cross Lake
Valley Lake
Full Moon Lake
Halls Lake
Shoestring Lake
Bobs Lake
Upper Silver Lake
Warbonnet Lake
Probable
Uncertain
Improbable**
Uncertain
Uncertain
Probable
Probable
Uncertain
Uncertain
Improbable
Uncertain
Probable
Probable
Probable
Comments on accessibility by horseback
7 miles from trailhead
12 miles from trailhead
approximately 15 miles from trailhead, mostly on foot; no
established trail
10 miles from trailhead
12 miles from trailhead
Approximately 7 miles from trailhead
Approximately 13 miles from trailhead
17 miles from trailhead
11 miles from trailhead
20 miles from trailhead
0.5 miles from Halls Lake, probably by foot
11 miles from trailhead
14 miles from trailhead
14 miles from trailhead; last 0.5 mile may be cross-country
through meadow
-------
Table 4.2-1. (continued)
Wilderness area
Lake name
Likelihood of
getting samples
to field lab
in 8 h
Little Divide Lake Probable
Poston Lake Uncertain**
Ansel Adamsd
(formerly Minarets)
California
Dads Lake
Blue Lake
Kidney Lake
Nydiver Lake
(middle)
Iceberg Lake
Walton Lake
Probable
Probable
Probable
Probable
Uncertain**
Uncertain**
Absaroka-
Beartoothe
(Montana)
Flat Rock Lake Uncertain**
Elephant Improbable**
Lost Lake
Uncertain**
Conments on accessibility by horseback
6 miles from trailhead
1 mile hike from helicopter landing site at edge of wilderness
6 miles from trailhead
7 miles from trailhead; last mile on a sheepherder trail
4-4.5 miles from trailhead; last 0.5 mile on foot or leading pack
animals, no trail
8-10 miles from trailhead
9.5-12 miles from trailhead; last 1.5-2 miles on foot or leading
pack animals
15-16.5 miles from trailhead; last 1-1.5 miles on foot (may be
some possibility of leading pack animals)
12-13 miles from trailhead; last 5-6 miles by foot or leading pack
animals
9-9.5 miles from trailhead; last 2-2.5 miles on foot; will require
personnel with advanced climbing skills
4 miles on foot or leading pack animals from nearest trail;
personnel with advanced climing skills may be needed
-------
Table 4.2-1. (continued)
Likelihood of
getting samples
to field lab
Wilderness area
Lake name
in 8 h
Comnents on accessibility by horseback
Rainbow Lake Probable
(3rd from NE)
9-10 miles from trailhead
Red Rock Lake Uncertain**
(eastern)
12-13 miles from trailhead; last 4-5 miles on foot or leading
pack animals
Black Canyon Uncertain**
Lake
8 miles from trailhead; last l.5-2m1les on foot or leading pack
animals
Fire Lake
Uncertain**
6-6.5 miles from trailhead; last 1.5-2 miles on foot
* All distances are given from trailhead unless otherwise noted; in some wilderness areas, proximity of lakes to each
other may allow sampling of more than one lake on a given trip.
** At least 1 mile of total distance on foot.
a Personal communication from Larry Lindener, District Ranger, Mount Evans Wilderness, Idaho Springs, Colorado, to Robert
Cushman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 18, 1984.
b Letter from Curtis Edwards for Larry Tripp, District Ranger, Okanogan National Forest, Winthrop, Washington, to Robert
Cushman, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 13, 1984.
c Letter from Dean Grover for Sam Warren, District Ranger, Bridger-Teton National Forest, Pinedale, Wyoming, to Carl
Petirch, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, December 18, 1984; 11 unnamed lakes to be sampled are not included.
d Personnal communications from (1) Butch Jones, District Lands Manager, Minarets Ranger District, Sierra National
Forest, North Fork, California, 12/10/84; (2) Mark Harris, Mono Lake Ranger District, Inyo National Forest, Lee Vining,
California, 12/17/84; (3) Mark Clark, Mammoth Ranger District, Inyo National Forest, Mammoth, California, 12/17/84; and
(4) Ernie DeGraff, Recreation Manager, Inyo National Forest, Bishop, California, 12/11/84, to Carl Petirch, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory.
e Personnal communications from (1) George Schaller, Resource Assistant. Recreation and Land Staff, Beartooth Ranger
District, Custer National Forest, Red Lodge, Montana, 12/12/84; and (2) Chuck Harris, Resource Assistant, Livingston
Ranger District, Gallatin National Forest, Livingston, Montana, 12/17/84, to Carl Petrich, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory; ten unnamed lakes not included.
-------
85
For some lakes, it appears relatively easy to return samples to the field base
laboratory within 8 h to allow for processing of all samples within the 12 h
interval specified in the current NSWS protocol (Sect. 2.1.3), assuming that a
helicopter would be available immediately to meet the pack train as it left the
wilderness area and would take no more than an hour to transport samples to a
field base laboratory; these assumptions have not been assessed and may be
optimistic. For a number of lakes, it is questionable whether the delivery
criterion could be met. In some cases, two days might be required for delivery of
samples to the field base laboratory. This delay would be accommodated by
modifying methods (e.g., extracting aluminum and processing all samples in the
field). These options are discussed and assessed in Sects. 2.2.3 and 4.2.7. Finally,
lakes that would require a long hike on foot (because no trails are present or trails
are impassable by horseback) would be impractical to sample under this
alternative because the weight and bulk of the gear to be carried is too great,
especially at high altitudes.
4.2.8. Cumulative Impacts
No significant cumulative impacts are anticipated from the use of horses to
gain access to survey lakes. Use of horses would contribute in a minor way to
existing problems of trail erosion, disposal of human waste, and introduction of
exotic seed from domestic grain and feed carried into the areas. To the extent
that the quality of the final survey results are affected, the comments in
Sect. 4.4.8 could be applicable.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 3 (COMBINED USE OF HELICOPTERS AND GROUND
ACCESS)
4.3.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values
Potential impacts under this alternative would be somewhere intermediate
between the first two alternatives depending on the relative mix of access modes
(helicopter vs horse).
4.3.2 Impacts to Recreation
Potential impacts under this alternative would be somewhere intermediate
between the first two alternatives depending on the relative mix of
helicopter-sampled vs ground crew-sampled lakes.
4.3.3 Impacts to Wildlife and Endangered Species
Wildlife
Potential impacts to wildlife under this alternative would be intermediate
between the previous two. Although some minor impacts might result from
aircraft noise, the incidence would be less than with Alternative 1 because many
lakes would be sampled by ground crews.
-------
86
Endangered and Threatened Species
As with other wildlife, adverse impacts under this alternative would be
intermediate between the previous two. Significant impacts could be avoided by
proper coordination with local wildlife officials (Sect. 4.2.7)
Even though four endangered or threatened fish species [a dace and three
trout species (Sect. 3.3)] may be found in or near wilderness areas to be sampled
in the NSWS, no adverse effects would be expected except in the unlikely event of
a large accidential fuel spill into a small water body containing the species.
A.3.4 Impacts to Water Bodies
Effects on water bodies under this alternative would pertain only to those
lakes to be sampled by helicopter (potential for spills or leaks, as described in
Sect. 4.1.5) and are likely to be minor. For those lakes where access would be via
horseback, the probability of impact is slight (Sect. 4.2.5).
4.3.5 Impacts to Human Safety
Potential impacts under this alternative would be somewhere intermediate
between the first two alternatives depending on the relative mix of
helicopter-sampled vs ground crew-sampled lakes.
4.3.6 Mitigation Measures and Contingency Plans
In some senses this alternative can be considered a mitigation measure in
itself, in that pack horses will be used to minimize intrusion of especially
sensitive areas. Elsewhere, mitigation measures described in Sect. 4.1.6 are
applicable wherever helicopters are operated within or in close proximity to
wilderness areas.
4.3.7 Consequences to the Survey Objectives
The magnitude of programmatic consequences of this alternative would
depend on the exact mix of helicopter-access vs horse-access lakes and on the
extent to which modifications in the sampling protocols were made. Section 4.2.7
discusses the consequences to survey object of several modifications that would
be implemented if access by horse were required. Sampling with two different
mechanisms of access creates problems of data comparability, and additional
studies would be needed for quality assurance (see discussion in Sect. 4.2.7).
4.3.8 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts potentially associated with this alternative would be
the same as those identified with the use of helicopters alone (Sect. 4.1.8). To the
extent that the quality of the final survey results are affected, the comments in
Sect. 4.4.8 could be applicable.
-------
87
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 4 (NO SAMPLING IN WILDERNESS AREAS)
4.4.1 Impacts to Wilderness Values
While there would be no direct, immediate impacts to wilderness values with
this alternative, the long-term indirect impacts could be severe (to a given
wilderness, to the wilderness system, and/or to the general country outside of
wilderness areas) if acidic deposition were to damage forest and/or aquatic
ecosystems. Such Impact assumes no other actions by government agencies are
taken, or are not taken, in a sufficiently timely manner to control acidic
deposition.
If wilderness areas were not sampled, the recommendations that could arise
from interpreting the final study results may not be sufficiently protective of
wilderness ecosystems to ensure protection of wilderness character for
generations. In terms of Fig. 4.1-1, zone "A" would not exist, but zone "B", in the
location shown, would be more of a certainty.
4.4.2 Impacts to Recreation
Under this alternative there would be no direct impacts to recreationists'
wilderness experiences. Indirect impacts due to long-term degradation of
wilderness characteristics could mean a diminished fishery resource, fewer and
less vigorous game species, and loss of aesthetic quality of the natural setting.
4.4.3 Impacts to Biotic Resources
Because there will be no activities associated with the NSWS survey within
wilderness areas under this alternative, there should be no direct, short-term
impacts of the survey on human or ecological resources within these areas.
4.4.4 Impacts to Human Safety
There would be no impacts to human safety under this alternative.
4.4.5 Mitigation Measures and Contingency Plans
Because no wilderness areas will be sampled, there is no need for mitigation
measures and contingency plans.
4.4.6 Consequences to the Survey Objectives
Because wilderness areas are associated with several characteristics that
are themselves associated with sensitivity to acidic deposition and related
measures, failure to sample these areas would introduce serious bias into the
results. All regional estimates based on the NSWS data base would only be
applicable to nonwilderness, and the objective of providing a regional picture of
sensitive lakes would thus be compromised. For example, the distribution of
selected lakes by alkalinity class (Table 4.4-1) shows that relatively more lakes of
low alkalinity (Class I) occur in wilderness areas. A chi-square test on these
values shows that the association of wilderness with low alkalinity class Is very
unlikely to have occurred on the basis of chance (P is less than 0.005). A sample
-------
88
Table 4.4-1 Number of lakes selected 1n and out of wilderness areas,
with numbers expected based on chance alone in parentheses
(expected)3
Alkalinity Class
Status
1
2
3
In Wilderness
248 (169)
151 (165)
99 (163)
Out of Wilderness
54 (133)
144 (130)
192 (128)
a Chi-Square = 143.7, P less than 0.005.
-------
09
which excluded wilderness lakes would underestimate the susceptibility of the
entire region's lakes to acidification. Similarly, the land use and elevation of
wilderness lakes probably have relationships to lake chemistry that would produce
biases in the regional picture of acidity and susceptibility if these lakes were
excluded. The results of the survey could not validly be extrapolated and used in
management and mitigation decisions for wilderness.
It would be possible to attempt to include the characteristics represented by
wilderness lakes by subjectively selecting lakes outside wilderness areas that
appeared suitable with respect to characteristics of known or suspected
importance (e.g., elevation, physical and biotic features, undisturbed nature).
Such an approach would violate the statistical validity of the estimates, which
requires random selection (Sects. 2.1.1 and 4.1.7). It would be impossible to make
inferences about regional characteristics using such data because many of the
inferences sought (e.g., how important are bedrock characteristics to lake
susceptibility?) would have bean used to select the substitute lakes. Because
many of the objectives of the survey would be unobtainable, there would be
considerable doubt that the results of the survey would justify the expenditure of
funds to do it.
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts associated with not sampling wilderness area lake,
could be those associated with the long-term degradation of forest and aquatic
ecosystems in wilderness areas (and elsewhere). The understanding of the acidic
deposition problem nationally and regionally would be compromised to a
significant, though unquantifiable, degree by not having the National Wilderness
Preservation System represented in the current NSWS. The uses of wilderness
either as an ecological yardstick or barometer or as a site for basic biological
research (see Sects. 3.1.1, 3.1.2, and 3.1.3) are intents of the Wilderness Act: not
sampling the wilderness area lakes could further the impression held by some that
the FS interprets its regulations so rigidly that it encourages even the pursuit of
biological research in wilderness area (Drabelle 1984). Following this same line of
thinking, some people could use the example created here (i.e., riot sampling
wilderness lakes) as further evidence that rigid maintenance of short-term
wilderness values is shortsighted and not in the best public interest, either for the
long or short term. A "purity backlash" (Hendee et al. 1978) regarding a perceived
inflexibility in wilderness management practices could evolve, creating uncertain
political actions with uncertain associated environmental consequences to
wilderness areas.
-------
90
5. LIST OF PREPARERS
This Environmental Assessment was prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, Seattle, Washington, by staff in the Environmental
Sciences Division and Energy Division of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak
Ridge, Tennessee. The following individuals prepared the document:
Robert M. Cushman - M.S. (Ecology)
Ten years' experience in evaluating environmental effects of geothermal,
fossil energy, and nuclear developments on water resources and aquatic
ecology; prepared sections on chemical measurements and analytical
procedures.
Carl Petrich - B.S. (Botany); M.L.A. (Landscape Architecture)
Ten years' experience in assessing the aesthetic impacts of energy
development; prepared sections on wilderness values, uses, and protection;
helicopter safety and noise; and recreational impacts.
Robert M. Reed - Ph.D. (Plant Ecology)
Eight years' experience in university research and teaching; ten years'
experience in environmental impact research and analysis; coordinated
preparation of general sections and served as project manager.
J. Warren Webb - Ph.D. (Ecology/Entomology)
Three years' experience in university research and teaching; seven years'
experience in research and assessment on environmental consequences of
energy production, utilization, and waste disposal; prepared sections on
sampling design and biological resources and impacts.
The following individuals of EPA Region 10 and the NSWS Management
Team provided extensive comment and/or technical information for preparation
of the EA:
David Brakke, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington;
Scientific Management and Report Preparation for the NSWS
L. Edwin Coate, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; Field Program Manager
for the Western Lake Survey
Robert Crowe, EPA, Las Vegas, Nevada; Logistics Manager for the NSWS
Wayne Elson, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; Environmental
Assessment Project Officer
Josephine Huang, EPA, Washington, D.C.; Headquarters Coordinator for
the NSWS
-------
91
Dixon Landers, EPA, Corvallis, Oregon; Technical Director of the Western
Lake Survey
Ron Lee, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; Technical Reviewer of
the Environmental Assessment
Rick Linthurst, EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina; Manager of
the NSWS
Eugene Meier, EPA, Las Vegas, Nevada; Analytical Chemistry, Method
Development, and Quality Assurance for the NSWS; prepared draft material
for quality assurance sections
Dan Steinborne, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; NEPA 309
Coordinator
Larry Svoboda, EPA, Region 8, Denver, Colorado; Technical Reviewer of
Noise Sections in the Environmental Assessment
David Tetta, EPA, Region 10, Seattle, Washington; Public Information
Coordinator for the Western Lake Survey
-------
92
6. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Federal Agencies
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
EIS and Energy Review Section, Seattle, WA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory, Las Vegas, NV
Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR
Office of Federal Activities, Washington, D. C.
Regional Offices, Denver, CO and San Francisco, CA
Office of Research and Development, Washington, D. C.
Idaho Operations Office, Boise, ID
Oregon Operations Office, Portland, OR
Washington Operations Office, Olympia, WA
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service - San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Jackson, WY;
Riverside, CA; Ft. Collins, CO; Rosslyn, VA
Watershed and Air Management, Washington, D. C.
Soil Conservation Service, Davis, CA and Salt Lake City, UT
Regional Foresters - Lakewood, CO; Portland, OR; Ogden, UT;
Missoula, MT; San Francisco, CA;
Albuquerque, NM
Gallatin National Forest, Bozeman, MT
Okanogan National Forest, Okanogan, WA
U. S. Department of the Interior
Office of Environmental Project Review, Washington, D. C.
Regional Environmental Officer
National Park Service
Water Resources Branch, Ft. Collins, CO
Legislative Affairs, Washington, D. C.
Regional Offices - San Francisco, CA; Seattle, WA; Denver, CO;
Santa Fe, NM
Park Superintendents
Sequoia-Kings Canyon NP, Three Rivers, CA
Yosemite NP, Yosemite NP, CA
Lassen Volcanic NP, Mineral, CA
Mount Rainier NP, Ashford, WA
North Cascades NP, Sedro Woolley, WA
Olympic NP, Port Angeles, WA
Glacier NP, West Glacier, MT
Yellowstone NP, Yellowstone, WY
Grand Teton NP, Moose, WY
Rocky Mountain NP, Estes Park, CO
-------
93
Bureau of Land Management - Reno, NV; Cheyenne, WY; Denver, CO;
Sacramento, CA; Portland, OR:
Salt Lake City, UT; Boise, ID
Billings, MT
Fish and Wildlife Service - Sacramento, CA; Billings, MT; Boise. ID;
Salt Lake City, UT; Helena, MT; Reno, NV;
Portland, OR
Endangered Species Division - Sacramento, CA; Boise, ID;
Helena, MT; Salt Lake City, UT
Animal Damage Control Division - San Francisco, CA and Reno, NV
Bureau of Indian Affairs - Sacramento, CA and Ft. Washakie, WY
Bureau of Reclamation - Boulder, CO; Sacramento, CA; Boulder City, NV
U. S. Geological Survey - Denver, CO and Menlo Park, CA
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA - Boulder, CO and Tiburon, CA
U. S. Congress
Honorable G. Ray Arnett
Honorable E. 3. Garn
Honorable O. G. Hatch
Honorable Dames V. Hansen
Honorable Howard C. Nielson
State Agencies
California
Governor of California, Sacramento
Department of Forestry, Sacramento
Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Environmental Affairs, Sacramento
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento
State Forester, Sacramento
Resources Agency, Sacramento
Air Resources Board, Sacramento
Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento
Office of Planning and Research, Sacramento
Utah
Governor of Utah, Salt Lake City
Executive Assistant to Governor, Salt Lake City
Department of Natural Resources and Energy, Salt Lake City
State Planning Office, Salt Lake City
Division of Wildlife, Salt Lake City
Outdoor Recreation Agency, Salt Lake City
Department of Natural Resources, Salt Lake City
-------
94
Bureau of Land Management, Salt Lake City
Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Salt Lake City
Division of State Lands and Forester, Salt Lake City
Division of Wildlife Resources, Salt Lake City
Office of Planning and Budget, Salt Lake City
Colorado
Governor of Colorado, Denver
Department of Fish and Game, Denver
State Engineer, Denver
Department of Natural Resources, Denver
Division of Wildlife, Denver and Ft. Collins
Department of Recreation Resources, Ft. Collins
Outfitters Certification Board, Moffat
Department of Health, Denver
State Forest Service, Ft. Collins
Oregon
Governor of Oregon, Salem
State Forester, Salem
Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland
Intergovernmental Relations Division, Salem
Department of Environmental Quality, Salem
Idaho
Governor of Idaho, Boise
Bureau of State Planning and Community Affairs, Boise
Department of Fish and Game, Boise
Department of Health and Welfare, Boise
Division of Tourism and Industrial Development, Boise
Department of Lands, Boise
Department of Parks and Recreation, Boise
Montana
Governor of Montana, Helena
State Forester, Missoula
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Billings
Water Quality Bureau, Helena
Department of Natural Resources and Conservation, Helena
Department of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Helena
Intergovernmental Review Clearinghouse, Helena
Nevada
Governor of Nevada, Carson City
State Forester, Carson City
State Board of Wildlife Commissioners, Reno
State Planning Coordinator, Carson City
-------
95
Bureau of Land Management, Reno
State Conservationist, Reno
Division of State Lands, Carson City
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Carson City
State Conservation Commission, Carson City
Department of Wildlife, Reno
Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City
Division of Water Resources, Carson City
State Office of Community Services, Carson City
Washington
Governor of Washington, Olympia
Department of Natural Resources, Olympia
Department of Ecology, Olympia
Department of Game, Olympia
State Conservationist, Spokane
Ecological Commission, Olympia
Department of Fisheries, Olympia
Wyoming
Governor of Wyoming, Cheyenne
State Forester, Cheyenne
Department of Environmental Quality, Cheyenne
Game and Fish Department, Cheyenne and Pinedale
State Engineer, Cheyenne
Water Research Center, Laramie
State Clearinghouse, Cheyenne
Recreation Commission, Cheyenne
Wyoming State Legislator, John Turner, Moose
Arizona
Commission on Arizona Environment, Phoenix
-------
96
Local Agencies
Board of County Commissioners, Pinedale, WY
Public Works Department, Denver, CO
Media
The Associated Press - Los Angeles, CA; Denver, CO; Boise, ID;
Helena, MT; Reno, NV; Albuquerque, NM; Salt Lake City, UT;
Seattle, WA; Cheyenne, WY
United Press International - San Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Boise, ID;
Helena, MT; Reno, NV; Albuquerque, NM; Portland, OR; Seattle, WA;
Salt Lake City, UT; Cheyenne, WY
Salt Lake Tribune; Deseret News; Unita News - Salt Lake City, UT
Interested Groups and Businesses
Sierra Club - Washington, D. C.; Oakland, CA; Sheridan, WY;
Boulder, CO; Pocatello, ID; Grand Junction, CO; Lander, WY;
Denver, CO; San Francisco, CA; Colorado Springs; Wilson, WY;
Helena, MT; Bozeman, MT; Logan, UT; Ogden, UT; Billings, MT;
Salt Lake City, UT: Boise, ID; Las Vegas, NV; Missoula, MT;
Reno, NV; Ft. Collins, CO; Corvallis, OR; Portland. OR
National Audubon Society - Washington, D. C.; Sacramento, CA;
Seattle, WA; Colorado Springs, CO; Denver, CO; Boulder, CO;
Missoula, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Portland, OR; Lolo, MT;
Reno, NV; Grand Junction, CO; Pueblo, CO; Green River, WY;
Evergreen, CO; Ft. Collins, CO; Greeley, CO; Big Fork, MT;
Greenwood Springs, CO; Anaconda, MT; Helena, MT; Logan, UT;
Cedar City, UT; Provo, UT
National Wildlife Federation - Washington, D. C.; Sacramento, CA;
Twin Falls, ID; Portland, OR; Boulder, CO; Springfield, OR;
Rock Springs, WY; Evanston, WY; West Valley City, UT; Denver, CO;
Bozeman, MT; Missoula, MT; Reno, NV; Casper, WY; Tooele, UT;
Cora, WY; Cheyenne, WY; Las Vegas, NV; Salt Lake City, UT;
Phoenix, AZ
Izaak Walton League of America, Inc. - Arlington, VA; Casper, WY;
Lakewood, CO; Portland, OR; Jackson, WY; San Pedro, CA;
Cheyenne, WY; Colorado Springs, CO
The Wilderness Society - Washington, D. C.; Denver, CO; Elko, NV;
Hamilton, MT; Boise, ID; San Francisco, CA; Helena, MT;
Moose, WY; Seattle, WA; Lakewood, CO
Wildlife Society - Flagstaff, AZ; Tulelake, CA; Portland, OR;
Moiese, MT; Ephrata, WA; Lander, WY; Sparks, NV; Cheyenne, WY
Trout Unlimited, Inc. - Eugene, OR; Livingston, MT; Olympia, WA;
Victor, MT; Bozeman, MT; Denver, CO; Salt Lake City, UT;
Cheyenne, WY; Santa Rosa, CA
Environmental Information Center - Helena, MT; Missoula, MT;
Boulder, CO; Salt Lake City, UT; Areata, CA; Kalispell, MT
-------
97
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. - Santa Barbara, CA; Berkeley, CA;
Boulder, CO
Friends of the Earth - Moab, UT; Billings, MT; San Francisco, CA;
Denver, CO; Palisade, CO
League of Women Voters - Boise, ID; Salt Lake City, UT; Denver, CO;
Lakewood, CO; Littleton, CO; Carson City, NV
Conservation Foundation - Washington, D. C.
The Nature Conservancy - Boulder, CO; Helena, MT; Arlington, VA;
San Francisco, CA; Ft. Collins, CO
National Forest Recreation Association - Mt. Laguna, CA
National Resources Defense Council - San Francisco, CA;
New York, NY
Eastern Sierra Packers Association - Bishop, CA
Colorado Mountain Club - Denver, CO
American Wilderness Alliance - Denver, CO
Cattlemen's Association - Payette, ID; Salt Lake City, UT
Idaho Alpine Club - Boise, ID
Wool Growers Association - Salt Lake City, UT; Buhl, ID; Ely, NV
Environmental Council - Boise, ID; Idaho Falls, ID; Portland, OR
Trout - Bend, OR
Idaho Trails Council - Idaho Falls, ID
Outfitters and Guides Association - Boise, ID; Brewster, WA;
Denver, CO; Hot Springs, MT
Idaho Federation of Western Outdoor Clubs - Idaho Falls, ID
National Wildlife Committee - Salmon, ID
Idaho Conservation League - Boise, ID
North American Outfitters, Inc. - Hot Springs, MT
Back Country Horsemen of America - Columbia Falls, MT
Wilderness Association - Helena, MT; Salt Lake City, UT; Bozeman, MT
Wildland and Resources Association - Great Falls, MT
Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada - Reno, NV
Nevada Mining Association - Reno, NV
Nevada Association of Soil Conservation Districts - Jiggs, NV
Nevada Recreation and Park Society - Carson City, NV
1000 Friends of Oregon - Portland, OR
Oregon Natural Resources Council - Eugene, OR
Wilderness Coalition - Seattle, WA; Davis, CA; Salt Lake City, UT;
Eugene, OR
Mountaineers - Seattle, WA
North Cascades Conservation Committee - Seattle, WA
Environmental Testing & Balancing Inc. - Snoqualmie, WA
Alpine Lakes Protection Society - Seattle, WA
Olympic Park Association - Seattle, WA
Guides and Outfitters - Salt Lake City, UT; Loma, CO; Kamas, UT
Women's Conservation Council of Utah - Mldvale, UT
Outdoors Unlimited - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Water Users Association - Bountiful, UT
Utah Water Resources Council - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Legislative Council - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Association of Counties - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Farm Bureau Federation - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Wildlife and Outdoor Recreational Federation - Salt Lake City, UT
-------
98
Wilderness Association - Salt Lake City, UT; Kalispell, MT; Lander, WY
Wasatch Mountain Club - Salt Lake City, UT
Wyoming Outdoor Council - Cheyenne, WY; Cora, WY
Wyoming Heritage Society - Cody, WY
Skinner Brothers Wilderness School - Pinedale, WY
Wyoming Outdoor Council - Cheyenne, WY
Bridger Wilderness Outfitters - Pinedale, WY
Outfitters Association - Pinedale, WY; Jackson, WY
Jackson Hole Alliance for Responsible Planning - Jackson, WY
Sublette Wildlife Association - Pinedale, WY
Oregon Guides and Packers - Portland, OR; Grants Pass, OR
Powder River Sportsmen - Baker, OR
Outfitters Professional Society - Aurora, CO
Western Cordillera - Bakersfield, CA
Evans, Carey and Crozier - Bakersfield, CA
National Forest Recreation Association - Flagstaff, AZ
Oregon Natural Resources Council - Eugene, OR
MRNPA, Roger C. Garrett - Tigard, OR
Accord Association - Boulder, CO
Colorado Mountain Club - Denver, CO; Boulder, CO
CERT, Warner Reeser - Englewood, CO
Greenpeace - Denver, CO
National Resources Defense Council - Denver, CO
American Friends Service Committee - Denver, CO
American Lung Association - Denver, CO
Clean Air Coalition for Health and Jobs - Denver, CO
Colorado Environmental Health Association - Boulder, CO
Native Plant Society - Denver, CO; Berkeley, CA
Inter-Tribal Council of California - Sacramento, CA
Colorado Outdoor Education Center - Florissant, CO
Outward Bound School - Denver, CO
Earth First! - Jackson, WY
Open Space Council, Inc. - Denver, CO; Cheyenne, WY
Outdoor Council, Inc. - Cheyenne, WY; Jackson, WY
Colorado Public Interest Research Group, Inc. - Denver, CO
Colorado Rivers Council - Denver, CO
Colorado Trappers Association - Golden, CO
Colorado Water Congress - Denver, CO
Colorado White Water Association - Denver, CO; Boulder, CO
Crystal Valley Environmental Protection Association - Carbondale, CO
CSU Environmental Corps - Ft. Collins, CO
Denver Parks and Recreation Foundation - Denver, CO
Denver Regional Council of Governments - Denver, CO
Elsa Wild Animal Appeal - Denver, CO; North Hollywood, CA
High Country Citizens Alliance - Crested Butte, CO
Keep Colorado Beautiful, Inc. - Denver, CO
National Environmental Health Association - Denver, CO
Northwest Rivers Alliance - Steamboat Springs, CO
Pavilion of Science-Technology - Denver, CO
Pikes Peak Solar Energy - Colorado Springs, CO
Plan Boulder - Boulder, CO
Preserve Our Poudre - Ft. Collins, CO
-------
99
Protect Our Mountain Environment - Evergreen, CO
Regional Energy/Environment, Information Center of the Conservation
Library - Denver, CO
Western Slope Energy Research - Paonia, CO
Wildlife Resources - Denver, CO
Montana Historical Society - Helena, MT
Alternative Energy Resources Organization - Billings, MT
American Wilderness Alliance - Helena, MT
Cabinet Resource Group - Troy, MT
Coalition for Canyon Preservation - Billings, MT
Defenders of Wildlife - Missoula, MT
Flathead Wildlife, Inc. - Kalispell, MT
Headwaters Alliance - Missoula, MT
Libby Rod and Gun Club - Libby, MT
Montana Audubon Council - Billings, MT
Northern Plains Resource Council - Billings, MT
Northern Rockies Action Group - Helena, MT
Northwest Citizens for Wilderness - Helena, MT
Wildlands and Resources Association - Great Falls, MT
Utah State Historical Society - Salt Lake City, UT
Citizens Committee to Save Our Canyons - Salt Lake City, UT
Defenders of the Outdoor Heritage - Salt Lake City, UT
Ducks Unlimited - Salt Lake City, UT
Issue - Cedar City, UT
Save Our Public Land - Salt Lake City, UT
Save Our Rivers Committee - West Bountiful, UT
Slickrock County Council - Moab, UT
Intermountain Water Alliance - Salt Lake City, UT
Source - Provo, UT
Utah Heritage Foundation - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Lung Association - Salt Lake City, UT
Utah Nature Study Society - Salt Lake City, UT
Jackson Hole Land Trust - Jackson, WY
Powder River Basin Resource Council - Sheridan, WV
Wyoming Heritage Foundation - Cody, WY
Washoe Council of Governments - Reno, NV
Nevada Water Pollution Control Association - Las Vegas, NV
Nevada Water Resources Association - Carson City, NV
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency - South Lake Tahoe, CA
Ecology Center - Berkeley, CA
California Council on Intergovernmental Relations - Sacramento, CA
Arizona Association of Conservation Districts - Woodruff, AZ
Arizona Bass Chapter Federation - Phoenix, AZ
Arizona Conservation Council - Phoenix, AZ
Safari Club International, Arizona Chapter - Tucson, AZ
California Natural Resources Federation - Sacramento, CA
California Forest Protective Association, - Sacramento, CA
California Tomorrow - San Francisco, CA
California Trout, Inc. - San Francisco, CA
California Wildlife Defenders - Hollywood, CA
Council for Planning and Conservation - Beverly Hills, CA
Natural Resource Biologists Association - Sloughhouse. CA
-------
100
Planning and Conservation League - Sacramento, CA
Rocky Mountain Bighorn Society - Denver, CO
Montana Land Reliance - Helena, MT
Northern Rockies Action Group, Inc. - Helena, MT
Environmental Education Project - Portland, OR
Oregon Bass Chapter Federation - Pendleton, OR
ONRC - Eugene, OR
Oregon Student Public Interest Research Group - Portland, OR
Washington Environmental Council, Inc. - Seattle, WA
Richland Ecology Commission - Richland, WA
Wyoming Recreation Commission - Cheyenne, WY
National Parks and Conservation - Washington, D. C.
CMC Conservation - Denver, CO; Boulder, CA
Boise Cascade Corporation - Boise, ID
Kennecott Corporation - Salt Lake City, UT
University of Nevada-Reno, College of Agriculture - Reno, NV
Utah State University - College of Natural Resources; Utah Coop
Fishery Unit - Logan, UT
Western Washington University, Dave Brakke - Bellingham, WA
University of Washington - Civil Engineering; Washington State
Forestry Conf. - Seattle, WA
University of Montana - KUFM; Department of Botany - Missoula, MT
Colorado State University - Grasslands Lab.; Forest Pathology -
Ft. Collins, CO
University of Colorado - Wilderness Study Group; Environmental
Center - Boulder, CO
Brigham Young University, Aquatic Ecology Lab. - Provo, UT
University of Utah, Brine Shrimp Alliance - Logan, UT
North Carolina State University - Raleigh, NC
Kilkelly Environmental Assoc. - Raleigh, NC
-------
101
Citizens
Craig Parsley - Snoqualmie, WA
Ernest E. Day - Boise, ID
Morey Haggin - Spokane, WA
Chris Yoder - Boise, ID
Ralph Maugham - Pocatello, ID
Dean Stepanek - Billings, MT
Jim Curtis - Missoula, MT
Ed Madej - Helena. MT
Virlis Fischer - Las Vegas, NV
Dean Rhodes - Tuscarora, NV
Bruce Henderson - Portland, OR
Jack Desmond - Eugene, OR
Bruce Boccard - Ashland, OR
Charlie Raines - Seattle, WA
Anne Bringloe - Bainbridge Island, WA
Rick Rutz - Seattle, WA
Tom May - Spokane, WA
Peter Coppelman - Washington, D. C.
Diane Hunsucker - Boise, ID
Robert Oset - Hamilton, MT
Bill Worf - Stevensville, MT
Peter Hovingh - Salt Lake City, UT
Richard Denton - Bountiful, UT
James R. Hunter - Bend, OR
Winchell T. Hayward - San Francisco, CA
William F. Boyd - Kellogg, ID
Jane Horton Mulcahy - Livingston, MT
James M. Mulcahy - Livingston, MT
Fred L. Cavill - Plains, MT
Melissa Lotz - Bow, WA
Mrs. Wil Smith - Sisters, OR
Edward W. Styskel, Bend, OR
Paul C. Paulsen - Portland, OR
Ralph M. Jackson - Burlington, WA
Arnie Arneson - Wenatchee, WA
Vivian Rico - Bellingham, WA
Paul B. McCarthy - Idaho Falls, ID
-------
102
7. REFERENCES
Aim, A. L. 1984. Memorandum from Deputy Administrator, April 17. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works
Association (AWWA), and Water Pollution Control Federation (WPCF).
1980. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
Fifteenth Edition. Washington, D.C.
Barnes, R. B. 1975. The determination of specific forms of aluminum in natural
water. Chemical Geology 15: 177-191.
Beamish, R. J. and H. H. Harvey. 1972. Acidification of the LaCloche
mountain Lakes, Ontario, and resulting fish mortalities. 3. Fish. Res. Bd.
Canada 29:1131-1143.
Bennett, D. A. 1985. Present Data Resources, Limitations of Present Data for
Assessment. Memorandum to NSWS Management Personnel, Jan. 18. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Washington, D.C.
Birnbaum, Z. W. and M. G. Sirken. 1950. Bias due to nonavailability in sampling
surveys. J. Amer. Stat. Assoc. 45:98-111.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 1973. Threatened Wildlife of the United
States. Resource Publication 114. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Washington, D.C.
Burks, S.L. 1982. Effects of Oil on Aquatic Organisms. American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, D.C.
California Air Resources Board. 1983. Facts About Acid Precipitation in
California. Sacramento, California. 7 pp.
Campbell, P. G. C., R. Bougie, A. Tessier, and 3. -P. Villeneuve. 1984. Aluminum
speciation in surface waters on the Canadian Pre-Cambrian Shield. Verh.
Internat. Verein. Limnol. 22:371-375.
Campbell, P. G. C., M. Bisson, R. Bougie, A. Tessier, and 3. -P. Villeneuve.
1983. Speciation of aluminum in acidic freshwaters. Anal. Chem
55(14):2246-2252.
Chapman, 3. A., and G. A. Feldhamer (eds.). 1982. Wild Mammals of North
America. Biology, Management, and Economics. 3ohn Hopkins University
Press. 1147pp.
Coate, L. E. 1985. Status Report for the Western Lake Survey. Memorandum
(Jan. 31, 1985) to A. 3ames Bomes, Acting Deputy Administration, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons,
Inc., New York. 428pp.
-------
103
Deitemeyer, S. 1984. Introduction, pp. 5-7. IN Workshop, Air Quality and Acid
Deposition in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. March 14-15, Fort
Collins, Colorado. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden,
Utah.
Drabelle, Dennis. 1984. "Feral Explorations: Wilderness as the Landscape of
Science," Wilderness, Summer, pp.24-6.
Driscoll, C. T. 1982. April Quarterly Report for EPA Project No.
APP-0094-1981, "The Chemistry, Transport, and Fate of Aluminum in
Dilute Acidified Lake Systems." Syracuse University, Syracuse, New York.
Driscoll, C. T. 1984. A procedure for the fractionation of aqueous aluminum
dilute acidic waters. Intern. 3. Environ. Anal. Chem. 16:267-283.
Driscoll, C. T., Jr., 3. P. Baker, J. J. Bisogni, Jr., and C. L. Schofield. 198Q.
Effect of aluminum speciation on fish in dilute acidified waters. Nature
284: 161-164.
Driscoll, C. T., and G. C. Schafran. 1984. Annual Report for EPA Project No.
APP-0310-1983, "An Evaluation of Aluminum in Acidic Lake Ecosystems:
Sources, Fate and Role in Nutrient Cycling." Syracuse University, Syracuse,
New York.
Dufour, P. A. 1980. Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals: Review of
Research Since 1971. EPA Rep. 550/9-80-100. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Defense Fund. 1981. "Acid Rain" Research in the Intermountain
West. September, 1981. Washington, D.C. 18pp.
Flath, D. (Nongame Biologist, Montana Dept. Fish, Wildlife, and Parks, Bozeman,
Montana) 1984 Letter to 0. W. Webb, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
December 11, 1984.
Fletcher, C. 1984. The Complete Walker III, Random House, Westminster, MD.
Franklin, 3. F. 1978. "Wilderness Ecosystems," in Hendee, 3. C., Stankey, G. H.,
and Lucas, R. C. Wilderness Management, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365, Washington, D.C.,
pp.191-212.
Galbraith, A. F. 1984. The acid deposition potential for the streams and lakes of
the Wind River Mountains, pp. 275-292. IN Workshop, Air Quality and Acid
Deposition in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. March 14-15, Fort
Collins, Colorado. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden,
Utah.
Galloway, 3. N., B. 3. Cosby, Jr., and G. E. Likens. 1979. Acid precipitation:
measurement of pH and acidity. Limnol. Oceanogr. 24(6):l 161-1165.
-------
104
Galloway, J. N. et al. 1984. Effects on aquatic chemistry, pp. 4-1 to 4-197. IN
The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects, Vol. II.
EPA-600/8-83-016BF. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of
Research and Development, Washington, D.C.
Godfrey-Smith, W. 1979. "The Value of Wilderness," Environmental Ethics, V.l,
No. 4, pp.309-19.
Green, R. H. 1979. Sampling Design and Statistical Methods for Environmental
Biologists. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 257pp.
Haddow, D. V. 1984. Forest Service responsibilities in the PSD permitting
process, IN Proceedings of the March 1984 Workshop on Air Quality and
Acid Deposition Potential in the Bridger and Fitzpatrick Wilderness, p.
22-28.
Hammitt, W. 1982. "Cognitive Dimensions of Wilderness Solitude," Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 14, No. 4, July, pp. 478-493.
Hammitt, W. E., and Brown, G. F., Jr. (In Press). "Functions of Privacy in
Wilderness Environments," submitted to Leisure Sciences.
Hendee, J. C. and C. Schoenfeld. 1978. "Wildlife in Wilderness," IN
Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankee, and R. C. Lucas, Wilderness Management, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, D.C., Miscellaneous
Publication No. 1365, pp.215-247.
Hendee, J. C., G. H. Stankey, and R. C. Lucas, 1978. Wilderness Management,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.,
Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365.
Henriksen, A., 0. K. Skogheim, and B. ~. Rosseland. 1984. Episodic changes in
pH and aluminum-speciation kill fish in a Norwegian salmon river. Vatten
40:255-260.
Hillman, D. C. 1984. Lockheed Environmental Programs Office, 10 December
letter to E. P. Meier, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas,
Nevada.
Hillman, D. C., F. A. Morris, J. F. Potter, and S. J. Simon. 1984. Methods Manual
for the National Surface Water Survey Project - Phase I (revision 3). U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Jakimchuk, R. D., E. A. De Bock, H. J. Russell, and G. R. Semechuk. 1974. A
study of the Porcupine caribou herd. Arctic Gas Biological Report Series
Vol. IV.
Kaplan, S. 1983. "A Model of Person-Environment Compatibility," Environment
and Behavior, Vol. 15, No. 3, May, pp.311-332.
-------
105
Kaplan, S. and J. F. Talbot. 1983. "Psychological Benefits of a Wilderness
Experience," in Irwin Altman and Joachim F. Wohlwill (eds.), Behavior and
the Natural Environment, Plenum Press, New York, pp. 163-203.
Kennedy, V. C., G. W. Zellweger, and B. F. Jones. 1974. Filter pore-size effects
on the analysis of Al, Fe, Mn, and Ti in water. Water Resources Research
10: 785-790.
Koch, W. F., and G. Marinenko. 1983. Simulated precipitation reference
materials: measurement of pH and acidity, pp. 10-17. IN Sampling and
Analysis of Rain (S. A. Campbell, ed.). ASTM STP 823. American Society
for Testing and Materials, Phila.
Kling, G. W., and M. C. Grant. 1984. Acid precipitation in the Colorado Front
Range: An overview with time predictions for significant effects. Arctic
and Alpine Res. 16 (3): 321-329.
Kramer, J. R. 1984. Report to E. Meier, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, Nevada, regarding analytical procedures with respect to
protolytes in the NAPAP lake monitoring program. Ancaster, Ontario.
Lee, D. S., C. R. Gilbert, C. H. Hocutt, R. E. Jenkins, D. E. McAllister, and
J. R. Stauffer, Jr., 1980. Atlas of North American Freshwater Fishes.
North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh.
McAuliffe, C. D. 1979. Dispersion and alteration of oil discharged on a water
surface, pp. 363-373. IN D. A. Wolfe (ed.). Fate and Effects of Petroleum
Hydrocarbons in Marine Organisms and Ecosystems. Pergamon Press,
Elmsford, New York.
McCourt, K. H., J. J. Russell, D. Doll, J. D. Feist, and W. McCrory. 1974.
Distribution and movements of the Porcupine caribou herd in the Yukon,
1972. Arctic Gas Biological Report Series, Vol. 4.
McQuaker, N. R., P. D. Kluckner, and D. K. Sandberg. 1983. Chemical analysis
of acid precipitation: pH and acidity determinations. Environ. Sci. Technol.
17(7):431-435.
Michael, D. I. 1984. Development of Data Quality Objectives for Phase I of the
National Lake Survey. Radian Corporation, McLean, Virginia.
Miller, G. T., Jr. 1975. Living in the Environment: Concepts, Problems, and
Alternatives , Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California.
Nash, R. 1978. "Historical Roots of Wilderness Management," in Hendee, J. C.,
Stankey, G. H., and Lucas, R. C., Wilderness Management, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, Miscellaneous Publication No. 1365,
Washington, D.C., pp.27-40.
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). 1981a. Special Study — Review of
Rotorcraft Accidents, 1977-1979 , National Transportation Safety Board,
Bureau of Technology, Washington, D.C., 20594, NTSB-AAS-81-1.
-------
106
. 1981b. Briefs of Accidents involving Rotorcraft, U.S. General
Aviation, 1979 , National Transportation Safety Board, Bureau of
Technology, Washington, D.C. 20594, NTSB-AMM-81-4.
. 1984a. Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data - U.S. General
Aviation - Calendar Year 1980, National Transportation Safety Board,
Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington, D.C., 20594, NTSB/ARG-84/01.
. 1984b. Annual Review of Aircraft Accident Data - U.S. General
Aviation - Fiscal Years 1975-1981, National Transportation Safety Board,
Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington, D.C., NTSB/ARG-84/02.
Nelson, P. 0., and G. K. Delwiche. 1983. Sensitivity of Oregon's Cascade Lakes
to Acid Precipitation. WRRI-85. Water Resources Research Institute,
Oregon State Univ., Corvailis, Oregon. 55pp.
Newman, J. S., E. J. Rickley, T. L. Bland, and K. R. Beattie. 1984. Noise
Measurement Flight Test: Data/Analyses Hughes 500 D/E Helicopter, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of
Environment and Energy, Noise Abatement Division, Noise Technology
Branch, Washington, D.C. 20591, Report No. FAA-84-3.
Newman, 3. S., E. J. Rickley, and T. L. Bland. 1982. Helicopter Noise Exposure
Curves for Use in Environmental Impacts Assessment.
DOT-FAA-EE-82-16. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation
Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, Washington, D.C.
Norton, S. A., and A. Henriksen. 1983. The importance of CO2 in evaluation of
effects of acid deposition. Vatten 39:346-354.
National Park Service (NPS). 1985. Letter from Daniel 3. Tobin, Regional
Director, National Park Service Pacaific Northwest Region, to
Ronald A. Lee, Environmental Protection Agency, 3an. 11, 1985.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). 1981 and revisions. Hazardous materials
controlled by ORNL. Report 7017. Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Omernik, 3. M., and A. 3. Kinney. 1984. Total Alkalinity of Surface Waters: A
Map of the New England and New York Region. Preliminary Draft EPa
Report.
Omernik, 3. M., and C. F. Powers. 1983. Total alkalinity of surface waters — a
national map. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geog. 73: 133-136.
Ono, R. D., 3. D. Williams, and A. Wagner. 1983. Vanishing Fishes of North
America. Stone Wall Press, Washington, D.C.
Powers, C. F., and M. O. Allum. 1984. Appendix to draft Annual Report on the
EPA Program for Long-Term Monitoring of Surface Waters in the United
States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvailis Environmental
Research Laboratory, Corvailis, Oregon.
-------
107
Powers, C. F., and D. L. Rambo. 1981. The occurrence of acid precipitation on
the West Coast of the United States. Envir. Monit. and Assess. 1:93-105.
Schomer, P. D. and B. L. Homans. 1976. User Manual: Interim Procedure for
Planning Rotary-Wing Aircraft Traffic Patterns and Siting Noise-Sensitive
Land Uses, U.S.Army Construction Engineering Research Laboratory,
Champaign, Illinois, Interim Report, N-10.
Seip, H.M., L. Mueller, and A. Naas. 1984. Aluminum speciation: comparison of
two spectrophotometric analytical methods and observed concentrations in
some acidic aquatic systems in southern Norway. Water, Air, and Soil
Pollution 23: • 81—95.
Snedecor, G. W., and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th Edition.
The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa. 593 pp.
Stuart, S. 1984. Hydrology and aquatic chemistry of monitor lake watersheds in
the Wind River Mountains, pp. 130-173. IN Workshop, Air Quality and Acid
Deposition in the Wind River Mountains, Wyoming. March 14-15, Fort
Collins, Colorado. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ogden,
Utah.
The Wilderness Society. 1984. The Wilderness Act Handbook, The Wilderness
Society Forest Management Program, The Wilderness Society, Washington,
D.C.
Turk, J. T. 1984a. Controls on the Variance in Chemistry of Three Lakes in the
Flat Tops Wilderness Area, Colorado. Open-File Report 84-723. USGS,
Lakewood, Colorado.
Turk, 0. T. 1984b. Determination of pH in dilute lakes: precision under field
conditions. Submitted to Water, Air, and Soil Pollution.
Turk, J. T., and D. B. Adams. 1983. Sensitivity to acidification of lakes in the
Flat Tops Wilderness Area, Colorado. Water Resour. Res. 19(2):346-350.
Ulph, Owen. 1982. "A Wilderness Manifesto, Or, Is Nature Too Good for William
Tucker?" Wilderness, Winter, pp.30-8.
U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). undated. Forest Service Manual. Title
2300, Recreation Management. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1976. Quality criteria for
water. Washington, D.C.
. 1983. Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes,
EPA-600/4-79-020. Environmental Monitoring and Support Laboratory,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
. 1984a. National Surface Water Survey. National Lake Survey —
Phase I. April 30, 1984. Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C.
-------
108
. 1984b. National Surface Water Survey, Phase I Research Plan, A
Summary of Review Comments. Corvallis, Oregon.
. 1984c. Workshop on Analytical and QA Strategy for the Phase I
National Lake Survey, Acid Deposition Program, Denver Colorado,
January 10-11, 1984. Transmitted by E. Meier, EPA, Las Vegas, Nevada, to
R. Reed, QRNL, 3 January 1985.
. 1984d. Justification for Helicopter Access, transmitted by
J. S. Huang, EPA, Washington, D.C., to L. E. Coate, EPA, Region X, Seattle,
Washington, December 4, 1984.
. 1984e. Letter from Richard T. Dewling, EPA, Region II, New York,
to Larry Henson, FS, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, September 14, 1984.
. 1984f. Preliminary Report, Western Pilot Survey, Logistics and
Sampling. Region VIII, Denver, Colorado.
. 1984g. The Acidic Deposition Phenomenon and Its Effects, Vol. II.
EPA-600/8-83-016BF. Office of Research and Development, Washington,
D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). 1982. Endangered Species Technical
Bulletin 7(3):8.
. 1984a. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants. 50 CFR
17.11 and 17.12, July 20, 1984. U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 24 pp.
. 1984b. Endangered Species Tech. Bull. 8(11):7.
Welch, E. P., and D. E. Spyridakis. 1984. Acidification Potential in High
Mountain Lakes in Washington. Final Report (Research Contract C-84039)
to State of Washington Department of Ecology, Olympia. 16pp.
Wetzel, R. G. 1975. Limnology. W. B. Saunders Co., Phila.
Wilson, D. and R. Wood. 1984. Mountain Lake Water Quality Survey - 1983.
Region 1 Data Report. State of California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento, California.
Yuhnke, R. E., and M. Oppenheimer. 1984. Safeguarding Acid-Sensitive Waters
in
the Intermountain West. Report prepared by the Environmental Defense
Fund. November 26, 1984. Washington, D.C. 28pp.
Zaslowsky, D. 1984. "Managing the Dream: Recreation, Contradiction, and the
Pressures of Enchantment," Wilderness, Summer, pp.27-33.
-------
APPENDIX A
LIST OF LAKES PROPOSED FOR SAMPLING IN WILDERNESS AREAS
AND NATIONAL PARKS
-------
A-l
Table A-l. List of lakes in federally designated wilderness areas.
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
FS
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
REG I
CALIFORNIA
BUCKS LAKE
GOLD LAKE
4A3-022
39-56'27"N
121-08'05"W
5
CARIBOU
(NO NAME)
4A2-060
40-28'30"N
121-14'27"W
5
CARIBOU
BLACK LAKE
4A2-002
40-30'25"N
121-12'38"W
5
CARIBOU
HIDDEH LAKES (EASTERN)
4A2-005
40-27* 12"N
121-11'35"W
5
CARSON-ICEBERG
(NO NAME)
4A2-035
38-24'58"N
119-56'43"W
5
DESOLATION
AZURE LAKE
4A3-032
38-55'16"N
120-07'25"W
5
DESOLATION
DICKS LAKE
4A2-024
38-54'45"N
120-08'30"W
5
DESOLATION
FONTANILLIS LAKE
4A2-058
38-55'12"N
120-09'05"W
5
DESOLATION
FORNI LAKE
4A2-022
38-57'17"N
120-15'42"W
5
DESOLATION
GRASS LAKE
4A3-034
38-52'22"N
120-06'40"W
5
DESOLATION
GROUSE LAKE
4A2-025
38-51'28"N
120-11'54"W
5
DESOLATION
LAKE ALOHA
4A2-026
38-51'45"N
120-08'15"W
5
DESOLATION
LAKE LOIS
4A2-023
38-55'00"N
120-12'00"W
5
DESOLATION
ROCKBOUND LAKE
4A2-021
38-59'53"N
120-14'15"W
5
DESOLATION
ROP1 LAKE
4A2-028
38-50'22"N
120-07'49"W
5
DESOLATION
WACA LAKE
4A2-064
38-51'18"N
120-08'25"W
5
DINKEY LAKES
(NO NAME)
4A2-041
37-11'26"N
119-04'41"W
5
DINKEY LAKES
LITTLE LAKE
4A2-042
37-09'30"N
119-02'37"W
5
EMIGRANT
(NO NAME)
4A1-005
38-07'53"N
119-43'58"W
5
EMIGRANT
COW MEADOW LAKE
4A1-058
38-08'35"N
119-44'10"W
5
EMIGRANT
LEOPOLD LAKE
4A1-004
38-10'39"N
119-48'16"W
5
EMIGRANT
LOST LAKE
4A1-003
38-13'49"N
119-38'51"W
5
HOOVER
HOOVER LAKES (NE)
4A1-012
38-03'27"N
119—17'50"W
4
JOHN MUIR
(NO NAME)
4A1-025
37-16'47"N
119-01'25"W
5
JOHN MUIR
BIG PINE LAKES(SECOND L.)
4A1-052
37-07'25"N
118-29'13"W
5
JOHN MUIR
BIG PINE LAKES(SIXTH L.)
4A1-031
37-08'10"N
118-30'40"W
5
JOHN MUIR
CHIEF LAKE
4A1-021
37-28'10"N
118-55'35"W
5
JOHN MUIR
DUCK LAKE
4A2-053
36-59'32"N
118-53'30"W
5
JOHN MUIR
HEATHER LAKE
4A1-028
37-11'20"N
118-51'07"W
5
JOHN MUIR
HORTON LAKE
4A1-054
37-19'00"N
118-40'00"W
5
JOHN MUIR
LAKE DOROTHY
4A1-051
37-32'20"N
118-52'55"W
5
JOHN MUIR
LAKE WIT-SO-NAH-PAH
4A1-020
37-31'35"N
118-52'30"W
5
JOHN MUIR
LITTLE SPANISH LAKE
4A2-044
36-55'43"N
118-54'26"W
5
JOHN MUIR
LONG LAKE
4A1-049
36-29'15"N
118-13'32"W
5
JOHN MUIR
MERRIAM LAKE
4A1-026
37-17"45"N
118-47'30"W
5
JOHN MUIR
NEIL LAKE
4A1-023
37-17'53"N
118-54'22"W
5
JOHN MUIR
REGIMENT LAKE
4A1-032
37-03'40"N
118-44'25"W
5
JOHN MUIR
UPPER LAMARCK LAKE
4A1-030
37-12'35"N
118-39'00"W
5
JOHN MUIR
VEE LAKE
4A1-024
37-19'20"N
118-48'30"W
5
JOHN MUIR
WAHOO LAKES (NW)
4A1-027
37-13'50"N
118-42'50"W
5
KAISER
NELLIE LAKE
4A3-047
37-16'52"N
119-14'45"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-029
37-10'20"N
118-44'40"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-033
37-01'45"N
118-41'45"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-034
37-04'00"N
118-38'20"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-035
37-01'37"N
118-29'30"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-038
36-54'10"N
118-33'30"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-040
36-48'15"N
118-25'10"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-041
36-43'05"N
118-31'50"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-053
36-48'40"N
118-25'49"W
5
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-056
37-08'40"N
118-39'50"W
5
KINGS CANYON
HORSESHOE LAKES (MIDDLE)
4A1-036
36-56'37"N
118-34'15"W
5
KINGS CANYON
STOCKING LAKE
4A1-039
36-52'15"N
118-22' 15"W
5
KINGS CANYON
SWAMP LAKES (WESTERN)
4A1-037
36-53'20"N
118-43'25"W
5
LASSEN VOLCANIC
(NO NAME)
4A3-010
40-31'27"N
121-24'48"W
5
LASSEN VOLCANIC
FEATHER LAKE
4A3-011
40-31'30"N
121-22'45"W
5
LASSEN VOLCANIC
LITTLE BEAR LAKE
4A3-072
40-31*22"N
121-24'21"W
5
LASSEN VOLCANIC
SHADOW LAKE
4A3-054
40-29'45"N
121-28'05"W
5
LASSEN VOLCANIC
SWAN LAKE
4A3-013
40-29'52"N
121-21'45"W
5
-------
A-2
Table A-l. (contd).
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
CALIFORNIA
MARBLE MOUNTAINS
BIG ELK LAKE
4A2-049
41-32*46"N
123-13'23"W
5
MARBLE MOUNTAINS
CUODIHY LAKES (LG.SW)
4A2-048
41-32'48"N
123-19'20"W
5
MARBLE MOUNTAINS
LOST LAKE
4A2-046
41-23'46"N
123-16'08"W
5
MARBLE MOUNTAINS
LOWER WRIGHT LAKE
4A2-050
41-35'00"N
123-05'08"W
5
MINARETS
CH1QU1TO LAKE
4A2-054
37-32'08"N
119-26'10"W
5
MINARETS
ICEBERG LAKE
4A1-018
37-40'15"N
119-10'10"W
S
MINARETS
KIDNEY LAKE
4A1-014
37-53'50"N
119-11'45"W
5
MINARETS
NYDIVER LAKES (MIDDLE)
4A1-017
37-41'40"N
119-10'15"W
5
MINARETS
WALTON LAKE
4A1-019
37-37'22"N
119-21'52"W
5
MOKELUMNE
EMIGRANT LAKE
4A2-056
38-39'38"N
120-02'15"W
5
MOKELUMNE
FROG LAKE
4A2-030
38-41'16"N
119-59'OS"W
5
MOKELUMNE
SHRINER LAKE
4A3-036
38-32'11"N
120-09'32"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-042
36-40'55"N
118-24'25"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-043
36-36'25"N
118-38'45"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-044
36-39'40"N
118-26'00"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-045
36-37'20"N
118-20'45"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-046
36-34'37"N
118-32'04"W
5
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-047
36-31'37"N
118-18'20"W
5
SEQUOIA
BIG FIVE LAKES (SMALL N)
4A1-048
36-29'04"N
118-31'10"W
5
SEQUOIA
WRIGHT LAKES(NW)
4A1-060
36-38'11"N
118-22'00"W
5
SISKIYOU
BUCK LAKE
4A2-047
41-48'54"N
123-41'16"W
5
SISKIYOU
DEVILS PUNCHBOWL
4A2-059
41-48'10"N
123-40'15"W
5
THOUSAND LAKES
BOX LAKE
4A3-008
40-43'15"N
121-34'17"W
5
THOUSAND LAKES
MAGEE LAKE
4A3-070
40-42'00"N
121-36'10"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
BIG BEAR LAKE
4A3-003
41-1V38-N
122-42'50"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
CANYON CREEK LAKES(NORTH)
4A1-050
40-58'33"N
123-01'27"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
GRANITE LAKE
4A3-060
40-57'10"N
122-51'25"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
LITTLE SOUTH FORK L
4A1-057
41-01'07"N
123-00'50"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
LONG GULTCH LAKE
4A2-055
41-11'30"N
122-55'05"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
LOWER BOULDER LAKE
4A3-002
41—14* 21"N
122-47'38"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
STOODARO LAKE
4A3-004
41-09'08"N
122-45'18"W
5
TRINITY ALPS
SUGAR PINE LAKE
4A2-001
41-03'45"N
122-51'10"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-006
38-05'12"N
119-42'19"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-008
38-04'15"N
119-46'53"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-010
38-03'30"N
119-39'09"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-016
37-42'15"N
119-17'15"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-055
38-05'10"N
119-40'24"W
5
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A2-036
37-57'10"N
119-50'17"W
5
YOSEMITE
BINGAMAN LAKE
4A1-015
37-50'45"N
119-14'45"W
5
YOSEMITE
LAKE VERNON
4A1-009
38-00'50"N
119-43'22"W
5
YOSEMITE
MARY LAKE
4A1-007
38-08'39"N
119-33'40"W
5
YOSEMITE
ROOSEVELT LAKE
4A1-013
37-58'15"N
119-20'00"W
5
YOSEMITE
VOGELSANG LAKE
4A1-059
37-47'12"N
119-20'35"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4A3-006
40-58'59"N
121-S2'02"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4A3-025
39-37 * 11"N
121-00'07"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4A3-028
39-17'52"N
120-09'30"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4A3-048
36-39'04"N
119-00'30"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4A3-050
36-05'32"N
118-49'10"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
ANGORA LAKES (SW)
4A2-027
38-51'45"N
120-04'00"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BARE ISLANO LAKE
4A2-038
37-29'44"N
119-07'25"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BLUE LAKE
4A2-015
39-21'28"N
120-37'52"U
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BLUE LAKE
4A3-055
40-23'15"N
121-17'52"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BOWMAN LAKE
4A2-010
39-27'07"N
120-38'15"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CASCADE LAKES (WESTERN)
4A2-017
39-18'03"N
120-26'11"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CRYSTAL LAKE
4A3-045
37-35'35"N
119-01'02"U
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
DEERHEART LAKE
4A3-018
40-14*15"N
120-59'10"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
OONNELL LAKE
4A3-038
38-20'10"N
119-56'30"W
5
NOT IN WILDERNESS
EMERALD LAKE
4A3-012
40-28'05"N
121-31'04"W
5
-------
A-3
Table A-1. (contd).
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION FS
WILDERNESS NAME LAKE NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE REGION
CALIFORNIA
NOT IN WILDERNESS FOWLER LAKE 4A3-059 39-46'27"N 121-00'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS FRENCH LAKE 4A2-013 39-22'25"N 120-32'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS FRENCH MEADOWS RESERVOIR 4A3-051 39-06'38"N 120-27'30"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS GLEN LAKE 4A2-003 40-27'12"N 121-15'54"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS GOOSE LAKE 4A2-008 39-40'22"N 120-38'07"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS HOCKETT LAKES (CENTER) 4A2-045 36-21'29"N 118-39'58"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS HUCKLEBERRY LAKE 4A3-014 40-24'27"N 121-32'50"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS INDEPENDENCE LAKE 4A3-069 39-26*30"N 120-16'30"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS INDIAN CREEK RESERVOIR 4A3-053 38-45'00"N 119-46'40"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS IRON CANYON RESERVOIR 4A3-005 41-02'38"N 121-59'00"W 5
NOT IN WILOERNESS JUANITA LAKE 4A3-001 41-48'4S"N 122-07'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDFRNFSS LAKE ALMANOR 4A3-017 40-15'00"N 121-10'00"W
NOT IN WILDERNESS LAKE STERLING 4A2-051 39-2T20"N 120-29'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS LEWISTON LAKE 4A3-007 40-44'37"N 122-48'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS LILY LAKE 4A2-020 39-02'15"N 120-11'25"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS LONG LAKE 4A2-057 39-17'33"N 120-25'50"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS LONG LAKE 4A2-061 39-42'00"N 120-40'48"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS LOST LAKES (EAST) 4A2-031 38-38'45"N 119-S6'42"W 4
NOT IN WILDERNESS LOWER ROCK LAKE 4A2-011 39-25'45"N 120-37'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS MANZANITA LAKE 4A3-067 37-14'45"N 119-31'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS MC KINSTRY LAKE 4A3-031 39-02'30"N 120-19'50"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS MIDOLE LAKE 4A2-012 39-24'02"N 120-36'12"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS MIRROR LAKE 4A2-040 37-12'52"N 119-07'25"W 5
NOT IN WI1DFRNFSS MUO LAKE 4A3-039 38-20'15"N 119-31'18"W 4
NOT IN WILDERNESS MUD LAKES (EASTERN) 4A2-043 37-06'37"N 119-04'18"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS NOBLE LAKE 4A1-001 38-31'40"N 119-46'35"W 4
NOT IN WILDERNESS PICAYUNE LAKE 4A3-058 41-13'18"N 122-31'22"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS PROSSER CREEK RESERVOIR 4A3-026 39-22'52"N 120-09'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS ROUND LAKE 4A2-029 38-45'00"N 120-00'17"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS S.P. LAKES (SE) 4A2-016 39-21'28"N 120-37'52"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SADDLE LAKE 4A3-021 39-59'13"N 121-20'57"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SAUCER LAKE 4A3-020 40-03'02"N 121-20'52"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SILVER LAKE 4A2-006 40-29'41"N 121-09'45"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SILVER LAKE 4A3-043 37-46'37"N 119-07'30"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SMITH LAKE 4A2-007 39-43'56"N 120-40'20"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SNAG LAKE 4A3-071 40-04'45"N 121-27'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SPIDER LAKE 4A2-062 39-00'45"N 120-16'20"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS STAR LAKE 4A3-016 40-25'06"N 121-09'21"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS STAR LAKES (NORTH) 4A2-037 37-31'00"N 119-32'44"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS STEVENS LAKE 4A3-035 38-45'07"N 119-47'07"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS STRAWBERRY LAKE 4A2-063 37-12'15"N 119-06'42"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SUMMIT LAKE 4A2-033 38-36'15"N 119-52'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS SUMMIT LAKE 4A2-034 38-26'00"N 119-58'20"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS THOMPSON LAKE 4A3-023 39-52'39"N 121-11'58"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS THREE LAKES (NW) 4A3-056 39-58'10"N 121-13'15"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS TWIN LAKES (NE) 4A3-066 38-10'00"N 119-20'00"W 4
NOT IN WILDERNESS TWIN LAKES (NORTH) 4A3-044 37-37'18"N 119-00'22"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS TWIN LAKES (SOUTH) 4A3-065 37-36'50"N 119-00'30"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS UNION RESERVOIR 4A2-052 38-25'55"N 119-59'30"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS UPPER SARDINE LAKE 4A2-009 39-36'30"N 120-38'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS WILSON LAKE 4A3-061 40-20'20"N 121-26'00"W 5
NOT IN WILDERNESS YUBA RESERVOIR 4A3-029 39-13'25"N 120-59'15"W 5
-------
A-4
Table A-1- (contd).
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
COLORADO
COLLEGIATE PEAKS
GRIZZLY LAKE
4E3-062
39-03'02"N
106-35*38"W
2
COMANCHE PEAK
EHHALINE LAKE
4E1-009
40-32134"N
105-39'41"W
2
EAGLES NEST
(NO NAME)
4E3-021
39-41'45"N
106-14*22"W
2
EAGLES NEST
UPPER PINEY LAKE
4E3-059
39-42"43"N
106-18'13"W
2
FLAT TOPS
(NO NAME)
4E2-063
39-57'J2"N
107-17'07"W
2
FLAT TOPS
(NO NAME)
4E3-012
40-00*03"N
107-22'03"W
2
FLAT TOPS
(NO NAME)
4E3-061
39-54' KPN
107-10'48"W
2
FLAT TOPS
DEER LAKE
4E2-019
39-57'15"N
107-09'50"W
2
FLAT TOPS
JOHNNY MEYERS LAKE
4E3-017
39-50*28"N
107-09'44"W
2
FLAT TOPS
LITTLE TRAPPERS LAKE
4E3-015
39-59*24"N
107-12'30"W
2
FLAT TOPS
OYSTER LAKE
4E2-016
39-55'20"N
107-24*32"U
2
FLAT TOPS
SURPRISE LAKE
4E2-01B
39-57*52"N
1Q7-U'3V'W
2
FLAT TOPS
TWIN LAKES (SOUTH)
4E2-017
39-56'4B"N
107-17"30"W
2
HOLY CROSS
FANCY LAKE
4E3-054
39-24'27"N
106-29'55"W
2
HOLY CROSS
PARADISE LAKES (EAST)
4E3-026
39-21'08"N
106-29'05"W
2
HUNTER-FRYING PAN
GRANITE LAKES (NORTH)
4E3-027
39-14'30"N
106-34'16"W
2
HUNTER-FRYING PAN
INDEPENDENCE LAKE
4E3-052
39-08'37"N
106-34'00"W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
(NO NAME)
4E1-035
40-10'04"N
105-41'54"W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
(NO NAME)
4E1-046
40-00'05"N
105-41*10-W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
BLUE LAKE
4E1-040
40-05"20"N
105-37*10"W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
BOB LAKE
4E1-056
39-57'09"N
105-4 TO 7 "W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
CARIBOU LAKE
4E1-045
40-01'15"N
105-40'55"W
2
INOIAN PEAKS
CONEY LAKE
4E1-039
40-07*00"N
105-36'37"W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
CRATER LAKE
4E1-04I
40-04'32"N
105-39'50"W
2
INOIAN PEAKS
ISLAND LAKE
4E1-036
40-08'50"N
105-40*00"W
2
INOIAN PEAKS
JASPER LAKE
4E1-048
39-58145"N
105-39'45"W
2
INOIAN PEAKS
KING LAKE
4E1-049
39-56'25"N
105-41'13"W
2
INDIAN PEAKS
RED DEER LAKE
4E1-059
40-08'35"N
105-36'35"W
2
INOIAN PEAKS
UPPER DIAMOND LAKE
4E1-047
39-59'30"N
105-40*22"W
L.
INDIAN PEAKS
WOODLAND LAKE
4E1-050
39-57'15"N
105-39*50"W
7.
MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS
(NO NAME)
4E3-032
39-00'44"N
106-56'58"W
L
MAROON BELLS-SNOWMASS
PIERRE LAKES (NW)
4E3-028
39-08'56"N
107-04*15"W
2
MT EVANS
(NO NAME)
4E2-051
39-35'43"N
105-42'12"W
2
NT EVANS
CHICAGO LAKES (LG.NORTH)
4E2-026
39-36'58"N
105-38'00"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
(NO NAME)
4E1-001
40-43'00"N
106-39'08"W
2
HT ZIRKEL
BEAR LAKES (NW)
4E2-0U
40-46'36"N
106-38'00"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
BIG CREEK LAKE
4E1-003
40-39'40"N
106-44'00 "W
2
HT ZIRKEL
BLUE LAKE
4E2-062
40-49'30"N
106-37 05"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
FISH HAWK LAKE
4E1-004
40-37'42"N
106-46'05"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
GOLD CREEK LAKE
4E2-010
40-46'55"N
106-40'42"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
LAKE MARGARET
4E1-00S
40-38*00"N
106-45*15"W
2
HT ZIRKEL
LAKE OF THE CRAGS
4E1-052
40-39'00"N
106-42'36"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
MARTHA LAKE
4E2-013
40-33*30"N
106-40'57"W
2
HT ZIRKEL
MICA LAKE
4E2-008
40-49*26"N
106-42'30"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
PORCUPINE LAKE
4E1-006
40-37*08"N
106-43'02"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
PTARMIGAN LAKE
4E1-002
40-41 *52'*N
106-41'23"W
2
HT ZIRKEL
SEVEN LAKES (LG.EAST)
4E2-009
40-53'45"N
106-40'55"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
SLIDE LAKE
4E1-007
40-39"11"N
106-39'45"W
2
HT ZIRKEL
TWIN LAKES (SOUTH)
4E2-012
40-48'50"N
106-37'00"W
2
MT ZIRKEL
WEST FORK LAKE
4E2-007
40-54' 42"N
106-45"48"W
2
NEVER SUMMER
PARIKA LAKE
4E3-009
40-22'52"N
105-56'13"W
2
SOUTH SAN JUAN
TOBACCO LAKE
4E3-049
37-17*52"N
106-33'45"W
2
SOUTH SAN JUAN
TRAIL LAKE
4E3-050
37-09"28"N
106-35'21"W
2
WEHINUCHE
(NO NAME)
4E2-037
37-41'06"N
107-29'47"W
2
WEMINUCHE
(NO NAME)
4E2-038
37-40'06"N
107-33'55"W
2
WEMINUCHE
(NO NAME)
4E2-G39
37-38'tt"N
107-35'26"W
2
WEMINUCHE
(NO NAME)
4E2-042
37-36'17"N
107-27*26"W
2
WEMINUCHE
COLUMBINE LAKE
4E2-040
37-35'54"N
107-35'55"W
2
-------
A-5
Table A-l. (contd).
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEMINUCHE
WEST ELK
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WII.DFRNF.SS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
COLORADO
GOOSE LAKE 4E2-052
HIGHLAND MARY LAKES (S) 4E2-034
LAKE MARIE 4E2-043
MIDDLE UTE LAKE 4E2-054
MOON LAKE 4E2-041
SPRUCE LAKES (WEST) 4E3-044
TRINITY LAKE 4E2-057
TROUT LAKE 4E3-057
VERDE LAKES (NW) 4E2-035
WINDOW LAKE 4E2-0AA
(NO NAME) 4E2-027
(NO NAME) 4E1-0U
(NO NAME) 4E1-016
(NO NAME) 4E1-017
(NO NAME) 4E1-019
(NO NAME) 4E1-055
(NO NAME) 4E2-032
(NO NAME) 4E3-007
(NO NAME) 4E3-013
(NO NAME) 4E3-016
(NO NAME) 4E3-019
(NO NAME) 4E3-031
(NO NAME) 4E3-039
(NO NAME) 4E3-043
(NO NAME) 4E3-051
(NO NAME) 4E3-053
(NO NAME) 4E3-056
ALBERT RESERVOIR 4E3-010
ARROWHEAD LAKE 4E1-014
AZURE LAKE 4E1-015
BLACK LAKE 4E1-025
BLACK LAKE NO. 2 4E3-022
BLUEBIRD LAKE 4E1-051
BOX LAKE 4E1-030
CHATFIELD RESERVOIR 4E3-011
CHIQUITA LAKE 4E1-013
CLAYTON LAKE 4E2-023
COW LAKE 4E2-028
CRATER LAKES (NW) 4E2-022
CROOKEO CREEK RESERVOIR 4E3-024
DOWDY LAKE 4E3-006
DRY LAKES (2 FROM E) 4E2-047
OUCK LAKE 4E2-025
EUREKA LAKE 4E2-046
FIFTH LAKE 4E1-029
FINCH LAKE 4E1-038
FOREST LAKES (LG.N) 4E2-055
FOURTH LAKE 4E1-054
GLASS LAKE 4E1-023
GREEN LAKES (NE) 4E1-043
GREEN LAKES (NORTHERN) 4E1-042
GRIZZLY LAKE 4E2-014
GRIZZLY LAKE 4E3-036
HAYNACH LAKES (NW) 4E1-018
HINMAN LAKE 4E3-060
HUTCHESON LAKES(NORTHERN) 4E1-037
ICE LAKE 4E2-033
ISLANO LAKE 4E2-059
•00"
145"N
'00"N
•40"N
•02"N
"N
"N
"N
"N
"N
"N
"N
37-35'50"N
37-45'17"N
37-33*19"N
37-38'52"N
37-36'00"N
37-30
37-41
37-38
37-45
37-32'15
38-46'56
40-29'15
40-21'29
40-20'35
40-18'47
40-02'15
37-51'18"N
40-43'53"N
40-03'02"N
39-59'10"N
39-46'20"N
39-04'58"N
38-03'35"N
37-38*15"N
38-43*15"N
37-52'30"N
40-00*08"N
40-15'15"N
40-23*00"N
40-22'18"N
40-15'55"N
39-32'53*'N
40-11'30"N
40-12'47"N
40-07'40"N
40-26*28"N
39-53'22"N
38-49'12"N
39-54'02*'N
39-25'29"N
40-47'45"N
38-01'51"N
39-34'45
38-05'03
40-12'47
40-11*00
39-55' 17
40-13'18
40-16*52
40-03'03
40-03*18
40-30'40
38-40*01
40-20'47
40-46'18"N
40-10'26"N
37-48'49"N
37-49'09"N
106-58*18"W
107-35*00"W
107-35*38"W
107-28*27"W
107-28*24"W
106-52*05"W
107-33*50"W
107-09*20"W
107-34*52"W
107-04*30"W
107-10* 52"W
105-38*40"W
105-45'05"W
105-43'55"W
105-43'45"W
105-37*37"W
107-36*06"W
105-23'30"W
107-02'28"W
105-59'05"W
107-09'42"W
107-49'49"W
108-02*38"W
107-47*58"W
106-10'30"W
107-46*46"W
107-01'05"W
106-33'25"W
105-45'40"W
105-46'15"W
105-38'27"W
106-13'20"W
105-39'15"W
105-38*53"W
107-04'48"W
105-40*42"W
105-41'03"W
106-25'40"W
105-41'00"W
106-39'11"W
105-33'30"W
105-35*11"W
105-43'30"W
105-38'10"W
105-40'44"W
105-35'33"W
105-40'23"W
105-41'07"W
105-39'55"W
105-36'20"W
105-37'12"W
106-39'23"W
106-19'58"W
105-45'55"W
106-49*35"W
105-38'50"W
107-48*30"W
107-48*05"W
-------
Table A-l. (contd).
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION FS
WILDERNESS NAME LAKE NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE REGION
COLORADO
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
JEWEL LAKE
4E1-024
40-17'12"N
105-38'23"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
OUNCO LAKE
4E1-034
40-11'01"N
105-39'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KAREL PARK LAKE
4E3-018
39-54*30"N
105-35'29"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KEPLINGER LAKE
4E1-032
40-14'33"N
105-37'28"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE HAIYAHA
4E1-022
40-18'17"N
105-39'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE HUSTED
4E1-010
40-30'35"N
105-36'36"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE NANITA
4E1-027
40-15'23**N
105-43'00"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE POWELL
4E1-026
40-15'17"N
105-39'35"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE SIMPATI
4E3-045
37-19'20"N
107-35'12"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE VERNA
4E1-028
40-!3'35"N
105-42'28"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LEWIS LAKE
4E3-040
37-52'26"N
107-46'32"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LONE CABIN RESERVOIR
4E3-034
38-50'10"N
107-30*40"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOOMIS LAKE
4E1-020
40-20'16"N
105-41 * 45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOST LAKES (NORTH)
4E3-041
37-45'39"N
107-18'40"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MACEY LAKES (WEST)
4E2-048
37-59'49"N
105-35'01"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MIDDLE RAINBOW LAKE
4E1-008
40-38'55"N
106-37'25"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
MILLS LAKE
4E1-060
40-17'20"N
105-38'25"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MIRROR LAKE
4E1-Q53
40-32'15"N
105-41'52"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MIRROR LAKE
4E2-053
38-44'35"N
106-25'52"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MT MASSIVE LAKES (LG.NE)
4E3-029
39-09*22"N
106-17'52"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MURRAY LAKE
4E2-024
39-36'18"N
105-45'35"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
NORTH CATAMOUNT RESERVOIR
4E3-035
38-55'35"N
105-03'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PANHANDLE RESERVOIR
4E3-005
40-51'10"N
105-39'10"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PATTERSON RESERVOIRS (W)
4E3-033
38-57'43"N
107—45' OO'lrt
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PIONEER LAKE
4E2-050
37-34*44"N
105-30'22"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PTARMIGAN LAKE
4E2-029
38-46*38MN
106-23*03%
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PUMPHOUSE LAKE
4E2-021
39-55'30"N
105-41'23"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
REO ROCK LAKE
4E3-014
40-04'54"N
105-32*27"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SANOBEACH LAKE
4E1-033
40-13'08"N
105-36'05"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SHEEP LAKES (LG.NW)
4E3-055
40-24'17"N
105-37'15"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SILVER CREEK LAKES (NE)
4E3-038
38-23'52"N
106-07'55"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SLATER LAKE
4E3-020
39-49'12"N
105-42'08"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SNOWBANK LAKE
4E1-031
40-14'25"N
105-38'40"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SNOWDRIFT LAKE
4E1-058
40-18'25"N
105-44'04"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SOUTH COLONY LAKES (N)
4E2-049
37-58'08"N
105-34'10"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
SOUTH MESA LAKE
4E3-023
39-02'30"N
108-05'30"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
SPECTACLE LAKES (NW)
4E1-012
40-27'04"N
105-40'30"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
STAPP LAKES (LG.NE)
4E2-015
40-07'10"N
105-32'28"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SUMMIT LAKE
4E2-060
40-32*43"N
106-40"55"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
TIMBER LAKE
4E1-057
40-22'27"N
105-47'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
TRIPLE LAKES (WESTERN)
4E1-044
40-01'50"N
105-37'15"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
TWIN LAKES (NW)
4E3-008
40-38'22"N
105-50'25"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
TWO RIVERS LAKE
4E1-021
40-19' 17"N
105-40'55"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
UPPER BRUSH LAKE
4E2-045
38-12'28"N
105-42'48"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
UPPER EGGLESTON LAKE
4E3-030
39-03'12"N
107-55'43"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
WILLOW CRK LKS(SE)
4E2-056
37-58'57"N
105-35'32"W
2
IDAHO
GOSPEL HUMP
KELLY LAKES (WESTERN)
4C2-019
45-38'36"N
115-40'38"W
1
HELLS CANYON
SATAN LAKE
4C3-039
45-12'05"N
116-33'11"W
6
HELLS CANYON
TRIANGLE LAKE
4C3-061
45-19'14"N
116-33'48"W
6
RIVER OF NO RETURN
(NO NAME)
4C2-021
45-32'02"N
114-45'00"W
1
RIVER OF NO RETURN
CENTER CK. LAKES (WEST)
4C2-014
45-34'23"N
115-02'28"W
1
RIVER OF NO RETURN
CUTTHROAT LAKE
4C2-030
45-22'30"N
115-20'00"W
4
RIVER OF NO RETURN
DENNIS LAKES (MIDDLE)
4C2-053
45-32'17"N
114-52'40"W
1
RIVER OF NO RETURN
OOME LAKE
4C2-034
45-15'40"N
114-31'10"W
4
-------
Table A-l. (contd).
A-7
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
IDAHO
FALCONBERRY LAKE 4C2-041 44-45'07"N 114-45'33"W 4
GOLDEN TROUT LAKE 4C2-036 45-06'40"N 114-31'15"W 4
HARBOR LAKE 4C2-035 45-08'35"N 114-35'30"W 4
MABLE LAKES (NORTHWEST) 4C3-045 44-27'26"N 115-09'22"W 4
SKYHIGH LAKE 4C2-056 45-07'12"N 114-36'29"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-042 44-00'50"N 114-59'56"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-043 44-01'50"N 114-57'32"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-044 44-00'06"N 114-55'20"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-046 43-57'34"N 1U-56'30"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-047 43-56'10"N 114-59'53"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-048 43-55'38"N 114-58'20"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-049 43-54'52"N 114-58'09"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-050 43-53'24"N 114-59'35"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-058 43-56'23"N 114-59'48"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-044 44-09'25"N 115-02'08"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-046 44-05'15"N 114-59'35"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-047 43-59'36"N U5-05'33"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-048 43-56'26"N 115-05'28"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-049 43-57'59"N 115-01'18"W 4
(NO NAME) 4C2-051 44-02'06"N 115-08'40"W 4
ALPINE LAKE 4C1-057 44-03'53"N 115-01'20"W 4
FARLEY LAKE 4C1-045 43-58'46"N 114-55'50"W 4
UPPER BARON LAKE 4C2-045 44-04'40"N 115-01'45"U 4
(NO NAME) 4C1-026 45-57'31"N 114-24'35"W
(NO NAME) 4C2-010 46-17'33"N U5-06'40"W
BIG FOG LAKE 4C2-011 46-08'52"N 115-10'54"W
BRUSHY FORK LAKE 4C1-025 45-58'50"N 114-34'15"W
BUCK LAKE 4C2-013 45-59'08"N 115-06'58"W
COLT LAKE 4C1-056 46-24'06"N 114-43'39"W
EAGLE MOUNTAIN LAKE 4C2-009 46-20'30"N 115-06'45"W
ELIZABETH LAKE 4C2-052 46-ll'54"N 115-12'33"W
HIDDEN LAKE 4C2-012 46-21'00"N 114-31'00"W
OEANETTE LAKE 4C1-015 46-18'20"N 114-34'45"W
KIDNEY LAKE 4C1-032 46-20'57"N U4-43'30"W
MAY LAKE 4C1-033 46-15'30"N 114-51'58"W
PARACHUTE LAKE 4C1-013 46-24'55"N 114-25'15"W
PARK LAKE 4C1-018 46-10'37"N 114-37'23"W
SIAH LAKE 4C1-059 46-31'23"N 114-26'37"W
WHITE CAP LAKES (CENTER) 4C1-028 45-55'00"N 114-27'05"W
(NO NAME) 4C1-031 46-24'43MN 114-42'24"W
(NO NAME) 4C2-028 45-07'09"N 116-05'41"W
(NO NAME) 4C3-044 44-30'28'N 115-07'30"U
(NO NAME) 4C3-048 44-01'27"N 114-37'32"W
(NO NAME) 4C3-050 43-33'28"N 114-24'49"W
(NO NAME) 4C3-054 44-45'07"N 116-02'35"W
(NO NAME) 4C3-057 48-40'02"N 116-03'31"W
BEAR CREEK LAKE 4C3-049 43-59'36"N 113-30'42"W
BLACKMARE LAKE 4C2-033 44-46'00"N 115-48'10"W
BLOOM LAKE 4C2-002 48-30'08"N 116-25'00"W
BOX LAKE 4C2-029 45-01'll"N 115-58'45"W
BUSTER LAKE 4C3-046 44-26'22"N 114-24'52"W
CHAMPION LAKES (LG.SOUTH) 4C3-047 44-00'00"N 114-41'06"W
COOKS LAKE 4C1-004 48-41'57"N 116-35'11"W
COW LAKE 4C2-060 45-01'45"N 115-49'43"W
CUTOFF LAKE 4C1-051 48-51'12"N 116-40'53"W
FAULT LAKE 4C1-005 48-33'53"N 116-41'44"
FISH LAKE 4C2-004 47-06'04"N U5-57'45"W
FROG LAKE 4C2-027 45-09'36"N 116-11*53"W
GIBSON LAKES (LG. SE) 4D3-040 42-02*12"N 1U-37'47"W
RIVER OF NO RETURN
RIVER OF NO RETURN
RIVER OF NO RETURN
RIVER OF NO RETURN
RIVER OF NO RETURN
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SAWTOOTH
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-8ITTEROOT
NOT IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILOERNESS
IN WILOERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
IN WILOERNESS
IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
NOT
4
4
4
4
4
1
4
4
1
4
4
4
1
4
1
1
1
4
4
-------
A-8
Table A-l. (contd).
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION FS
WILDERNESS NAME LAKE NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE REGION
IDAHO
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HAT CREEK LAKES (SE)
4C3-042
44-52'39"N
114-12'14"W
4
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
KELLY LAKE
4C2-043
44-16'52"N
115-09'27"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KENT LAKE
4C1-003
48-43'34"N
116-40'15"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOOKOUT LAKE
4C1-001
48-46'45"N
116-46'43"W
1
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
MAKI LAKE
4C2-031
44-58'24"N
115-54'53"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MALONY LAKE
4C2-032
44-52'29"N
115-54'00"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MARSH LAKE
4C2-001
48-56'30"N
116-47'15"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MINER LAKE
4C2-058
43-45'33"N
114-39'54"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
NORTHBOUND LAKE
4C2-006
46-56'25"N
115-34'09"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PONY LAKE
4C3-040
45-11'04"N
114-06'43"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
ROMAN NOSE LAKES(N)
4C1-053
48-38'27"N
116-34'58"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
ROSS FORK LKS.UG.CENTER)
4C2-050
43-45'11"N
115-01'53"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
ROUND LAKE
4C3-064
48-09'43"N
116-38'15"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SMITH LAKE
4C1-007
48-25'11"N
116-06'10"W
1
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
SNOW LAKE
4C1-006
48-38'35"N
116-35'38"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SPRUCE CRK. LAKES (LG. S)
4C1-009
46-34'07"N
114-23* 25"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
UPPER PALISADES L.
4D3-069
43-26'03"N
111-07'15"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
UPPER STEVENS LAKE
4C2-003
47-25'41"N
115-45'41"W
1
MONTANA
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ABSAROKA-BEARTOOTH
ANACONOA-PINTLER
ANACONDA-PINTLER
ANACON DA-PIN T L ER
CABINET MOUNTAIN
GREAT BEAR
LEE METCALF
LEE METCALF
LEE METCALF
MISSION MOUNTAINS
MISSION MOUNTAINS
RATTLESNAKE
RATTLESNAKE
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
SELWAY-BITTEROOT
(NO NAME) 401-001 45-03'58MN 109-46'02"W
(NO NAME) 402-004 45-10'27"N 109-45'17"W
(NO NAME) 402-007 45-04'04"N 109-44'45"U
(NO NAME) 402-050 45-16'12"N 110-06'07"W
(NO NAME) 402-057 45-06'31"N 109-42'50"W
(NO NAME) 403-004 45-15'32"N 110-09'52"W
(NO NAME) 403-005 45-18'03"N 109-48'17"W
(NO NAME) 4D3-006 45-10'42"N 110-05'54"W
(NO NAME) 403-010 45-01'34"N 109-38'58"W
(NO NAME) 403-067 45-14'42"N 109-51'15"W
BLACK CANYON LAKE 402-008 45-04'10"N 109-32'00"W
ELEPHANT LAKE 4D2-005 45-07'25"N 109-39'30"W
FIRE LAKE 4D3-002 45-22'52"N 110-30'31"W
FLAT ROCK LAKE 4D1-002 45-04'00"N 109-38'15"W
LOST LAKE 403-007 45-ll'40"N 109-41'15"W
RAINBOW LAKES (3 FROM ME) 4D3-056 45-16'27"N 110-07'15"W
RED ROCK LAKES (EASTERN) 4D2-0C6 45-04'55"N 109-44'00"W
CARPP LAKE 4C2-015 46-00'44"N 113-27'09"W
HOPE LAKE 4C2-018 45-51,25"N 113-36'11"W
RAINBOW LAKE 4C2-017 45-57' 28"N 113-27'06"W
SKY LAKES
-------
A-9
Table A-l. (contd).
WILOERNESS NAME
LAKE NAHE
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
MONTANA
-BITTEROOT BLODGETT LAKE 4C1-017 46-15'00"N 114-27'15"W
-BITTEROOT CAVE LAKE 4C1-030 45-54'12"N 114-17'54"W
-BITTEROOT FISH LAKE 4C1-021 46-06'13"N 114-27'30"W
-BITTEROOT HEINRICH LAKE 4C1-016 46-18'49"N 114-25'08"W
-BITTEROOT HOLLOWAY LAKE 4C1-010 46-38'09"N 114-15*42"W
-BITTEROOT LITTLE CARLTON LAKE 4C1-0U 46-40'46"N 114-12'50"W
-BITTEROOT MIDDLE FK. LAKES (WEST) 4C1-012 46-33'03"N U4-19'37"W
-BITTEROOT MILEPOST LAKE 4C1-022 46-02'25"N 114-29 * 59"W
-BITTEROOT SEARS LAKE 4C1-055 46-17'58"N 114-22'12"W
-BITTEROOT TRAPPER LAKE 4C1-029 45-54'32"N 114-21'29"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAHE) 4C1-008 46-43'48"N 114-46'30"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAHE) 4C2-016 46-02'52"N 113-12'20"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAHE) 4C3-002 48-56'34"N 113-43'00"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-004 48-49*10"N 113-56'22"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-007 48-48'57"N 113-24'42"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-008 48-40'00"N 114-46'52"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-020 47-45'22"N 113-48'43"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-021 47-38'23"N 113-38'13"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-023 47-32'12"N 115-10'47"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-025 47-28'00"N 113-43'10"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-028 47-19'49"N 113-36'28"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-029 47-15'28"N 113-34'02"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-030 47-07'38"N 113-28'23"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-033 46-31'37"N 112-34'44"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-034 46-21'50"N U3-02'05"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-037 45-47*52"N 113-35'57"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-051 48-37'58"N 113-18'03"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4C3-063 48-52'30"N 113-25*52"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4D3-001 45-28'52"N 110-58'00"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4D3-003 45-21'07"N 109-43'15"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4D3-051 45-27'40"N U1-26'32"W
WILDERNESS (NO NAME) 4D3-066 44-54'04"N 112-11'13"W
WILDERNESS ACORN LAKE 4C3-024 47-28'33"N 115-08'51"W
WILDERNESS AOAX LAKE 4C2-037 45-19'46"N 113-43'35"W
WILDERNESS BIG HAWK LAKE 4C3-017 48-05'51"N 113-51'30"W
WILDERNESS BLUE LAKE 4D2-062 46-02'01'*N 110-17' 19"W
WILOERNESS BOBCAT LAKES (NW) 4C2-022 .45-37'14"N 113-13'34"W
WILOERNESS BONANZA LAKES (SOUTHERN) 4C2-005 47-05'10"N 115-07'54"W
WIIDFRNESS BUCK LAKE 4C3-053 47-17'04"N 113-46'40"W
WILDERNESS BUFFALO LAKES (LG.CENTER) 4C3-052 48-23'30"N 113-14'14"W
WILDERNESS BURGESS LAKE 4C3-027 47-19'58"N 114-39'43"W
WILDERNESS CANYON LAKE 4C2-023 45-35'10"N 112-59'41"W
WILDERNESS CARLTON LAKE 4C1-062 46-41'01"N 114-13'12"W
WILDERNESS CHAIN LAKES (2 FROM EAST) 4C3-006 48-46'32"N 114-34'07"W
WILOERNESS COBALT LAKE 4C3-013 48-26'04"N 113-25'30"W
WILDERNESS CRYSTAL LAKE 4C3-056 46-20'15"N 113-09'54"W
WILDERNESS DEEP CREEK LAKE 4C2-059 47-02'36"N 115-00' 15"W
WILDERNESS DEERHEAD LAKE 4C2-057 45-26'14"N 112-54'55"W
WILDERNESS DIAMOND LAKE 4D2-001 46-03'37"N 110-22'00"W
WILOERNESS ELK LAKE 4C3-019 47-53'58"N 115-23'54"W
WILDERNESS EMERALD LAKE 402-061 45-24'48"N 110-55'33"W
WILDERNESS ESTLER LAKE 4C2-026 45-22'25"N 112-58'37"W
WILDERNESS FEATHER WOMAN LAKE 4C3-010 48-37'04"N 113-46'38"W
WILOERNESS GLACIER LAKE 4C2-025 45-28'07"N 112-59'35"W
WILDERNESS GLENNS LAKE 4C3-062 18-54'10"N U3-47'30"W
WILDERNESS HARRISON LAKE 4C3-0U 48-31'10"N 113-46'00"W
WILDERNESS HEART LAKE 4C2-007 46-56'57"N 114-58'15"W
WILDERNESS HEATHER LAKE 402-003 45-24*35"N 110-56'08"W
SELWAY
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
SELWAY-
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
NOT IN
-------
A—10
Table A-l. (contd),
LAKE
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUOE
LONGITUDE
MONTANA
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HOLLAND LAKE
4C3-026
47-27'00"N
113-35*45"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HOPKINS LAKE
4C2-024
45-27'46"N
113-02'14"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HUBBART RESERVOIR
4C3-058
47-56'00"N
114-44'30"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KEEP COOL LAKES (WESTERN) 4C3-032
47-00'18"N
112-36'20"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KIDNEY LAKE
4C1-020
46-09'03"N
114-17 *02"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE GENEVA
4C2-038
45-15'07"N
113-39'18"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE OF THE ISLE
4C3-036
46-04'22"N
113-11'13"W
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
LITTLE POZEGA LAKE
4C3-035
46-16'42"N
113-04'25"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LONG LAKE
403-009
45-04'55"N
109-54'40"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MUD LAKE
4C3-003
48-51'24"N
115-10'22"W
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
SCHOOLHOUSE LAKE
4C3-012
48-25'07"N
115-51'02"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SCHOOLMARM LAKE
4C3-065
45-54'47"N
113-56'40"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
STONER LAKE
4C3-060
47-28'12"N
113-43'47"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SURVEYOR LAKE
4C2-008
46-49'21"N
114-45'30"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
THUNDER LAKE
402-063
46-02'02"N
110-17'08"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
TWIN LAKES (LG.SOUTH)
4C1-019
46-09'15"N
114—29'45"W
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
TWIN LAKES (SW)
4D2-058
46-02'33"N
110-18'50"W
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
UPPER TWIN LAKE
4C1-061
46-09'44"N
114-30'00"W
FS
REGION
NEW MEXICO
WHEELER PEAK
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
LOST LAKE 4E3-058 36-34'40"N 105-24'15"W 3
BRANCH TANK 4E3-048 36-02'43"N 106-41'03"W 3
STONE (BOULDER) LAKE 4E3-047 36-43'15"N 106-S2'32"W 3
NEVADA
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
INCLINE LAKE
MARLETTE RESERVOIR
4A3-033
4A3-063
4A3-030
38-59'48"N
39-17'40"N
39-10*22"N
119-56'20"W
119-55'32"W
119-55'15"W
OREGON
COLUMBIA
NORTH LAKE
4B3-009
45-38'33"N
121-45'25"W
6
DIAMOND PEAK
DIAMOND VIEW LAKE
4B2-005
43-31*42"N
122-04'15"W
6
EAGLE CAP
(NO NAME)
4C1-034
45-19'14"N
117-27'30"W
6
EAGLE CAP
JOHN HENRY LAKE
4C1-035
45-16*07"N
117-26'25"W
6
EAGLE CAP
LITTLE FRAZIER LAKE
4C1-040
45-09'06"N
117-16'01"W
6
EAGLE CAP
LONG LAKE
4C1-036
45-14'00"N
117-26"22"W
6
EAGLE CAP
POCKET LAKE
4C1—037
45-10'30"N
117-16'30"W
6
EAGLE CAP
RAZZ LAKE
4C1-038
45-12'45"N
117-16'39"W
6
EAGLE CAP
SWAMP LAKE
4C1-054
45-13'03"N
117-25'16"W
6
EAGLE CAP
TRAVERSE LAKE
4C1-039
45-07'14"N
117-26'20"W
6
MT. HOOD
BURNT LAKE
4B2-058
45-21'03"N
121-48'05"N
6
MT. JEFFERSON
BEAR LAKE
481-014
44-45'00"N
121-50'30"W
6
HT. JEFFERSON
MARTIN LAKE
4B2-011
44-27'28"N
121-50'22"W
6
MT. WASHINGTON
KUITAN LAKE
4B2-055
44-16'38"N
121-56'38"W
6
SKY LAKES
(NO NAME)
4B2-002
42-31'40"N
122-14'23"W
6
SKY LAKES
GRASS LAKE
4B2-003
42-39'45"N
122-13'00"W
6
SKY LAKES
ISHERWOOD LAKE
4B1-002
42-34'22"N
122-12'05"W
6
SKY LAKES
LAKE NOTASHA
4B1-060
42-34'05"N
122-12'08"W
6
SKY LAKES
MC KEE LAKE
4B2-063
42-33'03"N
122-17'55"W
6
-------
A-l 1
Table A-l. (contd).
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
OREGON
THREE SISTERS (NO NAME)
THREE SISTERS (NO NAME)
THREE SISTERS CAMPERS LAKE
THREE SISTERS CHAMBERS LAKES (S.WEST)
THREE SISTERS EILEEN LAKE
THREE SISTERS HELEN LAKE
THREE SISTERS KRAG LAKE
THREE SISTERS MERRILL LAKE
THREE SISTERS PENN LAKE
THREE SISTERS RAFT LAKE
WALDO LAKE HARVEY LAKE
WALDO LAKE MOOLACK LAKE
WALDO LAKE WINCHESTER LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NONAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NO NAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NO NAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NO NAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NO NAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS (NO NAME)
NOT IN WILDERNESS ABERNETHY LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS BLUE RIVER LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS BREITENBUSH LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS BULL RUN RES. NO.l
NOT IN WILDERNESS CLEAR CREEK RES.
NOT IN WILDERNESS CRABTREE LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS CRESENT LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS DETROIT LAKE
NOT IN WILOERNESS ELK LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS EMERALD LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS FAY LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS FISH LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS GOOOFELLOW LAKES (EAST)
NOT IN WILDERNESS HEART LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS HIDAWAY LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS HOSMER LAKE
NOT IN WILOERNESS LAKE APHIS
NOT IN WILOERNESS LITTLE CULTUS LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS LOST LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS LOST LAKE
NOT IN WILOERNESS LOWER LAKE
NOT IN WILOERNESS MEEK LAKE
NOT IN WILOERNESS MIRROR LAKE
NOT IN WILDERNESS NIP&TUCK LAKES (NE)
NOT IN WILDERNESS PINE CREEK RES.
NOT IN WILDERNESS WINOY LAKES (2 FROM S)
4B1-007
43-53'00"N
121-58'30"W
6
4B2-009
44-02'30"N
121-58'44"W
6
4B1-013
44-13'30"N
121-52'02"W
6
4B1-012
44-07*20"N
121-46'43"W
6
4B1-064
44-08'20"N
121-50'54"W
6
4B1-054
43-48'54"N
122-01'02"W
6
4B1-010
43-57'41"N
121-53'20"W
6
4B1-065
43-55'18"N
121-54'04"W
6
4B1-009
43-57'07"N
121-55'08"W
6
4B1-008
43-48'21"N
121-54'20"W
6
4B1-006
43-47'23"N
122-02'10"W
6
4B2-069
43-49'22"N
122-04'10"W
6
4B2-007
43-49'12"N
122-06'20"W
6
4B3-051
45-11'00"N
122-22'50"W
6
4B1-003
42-37'53"N
122-08'35"W
6
4B1-005
43-41'12"N
122-01'22"W
6
4B2-004
43-25'25"N
122-03'11"W
6
4B2-006
43-41'10"N
122-07'53"W
6
4B3-002
43-16'12"N
122-27'20"W
6
4B3-003
43-36'10"N
122-06'00"W
6
4B3-004
44-10'32"N
122-18'18"W
6
4B1-056
44-46'10"N
121-46'40"W
6
4B3-008
45-29'10"N
122-03'45"W
6
4C1-041
45-03'42"N
117-09'14"W
6
4B3-064
44-36'18"N
122-27'05"W
6
4B3-066
43-28'45"N
121-59'00"W
6
4B3-006
44-42'50"N
122-11'00"W
6
4B2-012
44-49'25"N
122-07'00"W
6
4B3-007
45-01'18"N
122-21'00"W
6
4B3-005
44-30'38"N
121-58'30"W
6
4B3-001
42-23'20"N
122-19'45"W
6
4B2-015
45-25'30"N
121-57' 15"W
6
4B2-010
44-23'00"N
122-05'05"W
6
4B2-013
45-07'18"N
121-58'00"W
6
4B1-011
43-57'47"N
121-46'46"W
6
4B1-001
42-26'55"N
122-14'35"W
6
4B2-008
43-48'12"N
121-52'30"W
6
4B1-016
45-29'21"N
121-49'15"W
6
4C2-040
44-54'14"N
118—13'31"W
6
4B1-015
44-49'33"N
121-48'16"W
6
4B2-059
43-27'47"N
122-05'05"W
6
4B2-014
45-17'50"N
121-47'30"W
6
4B1-063
43-23'18"N
122-00'28"W
6
4C2-055
44-49'26"N
118-04'52"W
6
4B1-004
43-25'20"N
122-04'30"W
6
UTAH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
UINTAS
(NO NAME)
(NO NAME)
(NO NAME)
(NO MAMfc)
ALLREO LAKE
BLUEBELL LAKE
CLIFF LAKE
DEAN LAKE
DOLLAR LAKE
401-044
4D1-045
401-052
402-039
402-053
402-038
4D1-043
402-054
402-031
40-50'03"N
40-49'30"N
40-48'25"N
40-40'15"N
40-44'22"N
40-41'45"N
40-47'30"N
40-40'43"N
40-49'40"N
110-14'15"W
110-04'40"W
110-23'58"W
110-16*30"W
110-18'02"W
110-29'10"W
110-24'25"W
110-45'39"W
110-22'30"W
-------
A—12
Table A-l. (contd).
WILOERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REGION
HIGH UINTAS
HIGH UINTAS
HIGH UINTAS
HIGH UINTAS
HIGH UINTAS
HIGH UINTAS
LONE PEAK
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILOERNESS
NOT IN WILDERNESS
UTAH
MARGIE LAKE 401-042 40-43*00"N
MILK LAKE 4D1-047 40-43'15"N
PHINNEY LAKE 402-037 40-43'10"N
PINE ISLAND LAKE 4D2-055 40-38'25"N
PINTO LAKE 4D2-036 40-39*40"N
SHADOW LAKE 403-072 40-37'12"N
LAKE HARDY 403-046 40-31'27"N
(NO NAME) 4D1-040 40-40'00"N
(NO NAME) 4D1-048 40-46'38"N
(NO NAME) 4D1-050 40-43'10"N
(NO NAME) 4D2-033 40-48'30"N
(NO NAME) 402-040 40-43'20"N
(NO NAME) 402-041 40-34'15"N
(NO NAME) 403-041 40-56'07"N
ARTA LAKE 4D3-045 40-35'00"N
CLEVELAND LAKE 4D2-032 40-45'45"N
DUCK LAKE 4D3-043 40-54'41"N
GRASSY LAKES (LG. S) 403-059 40-56'30"N
KIBAH LAKES (SOUTHWEST) 4D1-049 40-43'05"N
RHOADS LAKE 402-034 40-44'04"N
STAR LAKE 4D2-035 40-41'30"N
STEAM MILL LAKE 403-071 41-56'39"N
TONY GROVE LAKE 403-050 41-53'36"N
TRIAL LAKE 401-041 40-41'00"N
TWIN LAKES RESERVOIR 4D3-053 40-35'53"N
WEYMAN LAKES (WESTERN) 401-046 40-48'38"N
110-46'10"W
110-23'30"W
110-39'50"W
110-49'19"W
110-48*30"W
110-48'00"W
111-43'57"W
111-04'34"W
110-06'40"W
109-49'15"W
109-51'50"W
110-04'30"W
110-56'40"W
110-37'18"W
110-47'25"W
110-06'40"W
110-32'12"W
110-51'55"W
109-56'40"W
111—01'52"W
110-56'45"W
111-38'30"W
111-38'35"W
110-57*15"W
111—35'52"W
109-57'40"W
WASHINGTON
ALPINE
LAKES
(NO NAME)
4B1-037
47-38'12"N
121-07* 15"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
AL LAKE
4B1-067
47-34'55"N
121-15' 38'*W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
BEAR LAKE
4B1-027
47-34'30"N
121-23'45"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
BOB LAKE
4B1-038
47-35*24"N
121-03'47"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
BONNIE LAKE
4B1-029
47-33'57"N
121-16'15"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
CIRCLE LAKE
4B1-030
47-33'05"N
121-09*45"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
COLCHUCK LAKE
4B1-024
47-29'30"N
120-50'00"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
COUGAR LAKE
4B1-066
. 47-36'05"N
121-31'40"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
CRYSTAL LAKE
4B1-068
47-28'28"N
120-48'05"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
DEER LAKE
4B1-052
47-34*15"N
121-24'00"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
DOELLE LAKES (EASTERN)
4B2-034
47-41*35"N
121-00'05"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
HYAS LAKE
4B1-036
47-34'30"N
121-07'40"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
LAKE IVANHOE
4B1-055
47-32'02"N
121-14'15"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
NAZANNE LAKE
4B1-034
47-35'45"N
121-17'25"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
PARADISE LAKES (NORTHERN)
4B1-032
47-39*20"N
121-30'20"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
RACHEL LAKE
4B1-022
47-25'18"N
121—19'4S"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
RAMPART LAKES (SOUTH)
4B1—057
47-24'57"N
121-20'20"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
SNOW LAKES (WESTERN)
4B1-025
47-28*55"N
120-45'22"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
SQUARE LAKE
4B1-061
47-38*45"N
121-07'10"W
6
ALPINE
LAKES
TROUT LAKE
4B1-031
47-33'27"N
120-54'25"W
6
BOULDER RIVER
SADDLE LAKE
4B2-051
48-10'44"N
121-45'20"W
6
BUCKHORN
(NO NAME)
4B3-032
47-50*23"N
123-11'18"W
6
CLEARWATER
SUMMIT LAKE
4B2-064
47-02'22"N
121-49'50"W
6
GLACIER
1 PEAK
(NO NAME)
4B2-047
48-24*36"N
121-04'43"W
6
GLACIER PEAK
AIRPLANE LAKE
4B1-053
48-00*10"N
121 -00 * 20**W
6
GLACIER PEAK
CANYON LAKE
4B1-058
48-14*48"N
120-59'40"W
6
GLACIER
I PEAK
LAKE NO. 2
4B2-046
48-28'10"N
121-19'44"W
6
-------
A—13
Table A-1. (contd).
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
region
WASHINGTON
GLACIER PEAK
LARCH LAKES (WESTERN)
4B1-042
48-03'48"N
120-44'15"W
6
GLACIER PEAK
LYMAN LAKE
4B1-043
48-11'30"N
120-54'30"W
6
GLACIER PEAK
PEAR LAKE
4B2-044
48-19'40"N
121-19'13"W
6
GLACIER PEAK
SULPHUR MTN LAKE
4B2-043
48-14'45"N
121-08'15"W
6
GLACIER PEAK
TWIN LAKES (EASTERN)
4B1-044
48-12*22"N
121—11"31"W
6
GOAT ROCKS
SUPRISE LAKE
4B3-013
46-28'10"N
121-21'33"W
6
HENRY M. JACKSON
HEATHER LAKE
4B1-041
47-51'30"N
121-07'35"W
6
HENRY M. JACKSON
JOAN LAKE
4B1-062
47-47'32"N
121-11'34"W
6
INDIAN HEAVEN
(NO NAME)
4B2-016
46-01'20"N
121-49'47"W
6
LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH
(NO NAME)
4B1-045
48-14'28"N
120-18'55"W
6
LAKE CHELAN-SAWTOOTH
WILLIAMS LAKE
4B1-070
48-22'20"N
120-30'55"W
6
MOUNT BAKER
HAYES LAKE
4B1-049
48-51'25"N
121-43' 11"W
6
NOISY DIOBSUD
WATSON LAKES (WEST)
4B2-068
48-40'00"N
121-35'22"W
6
PASAYTEN
(NO NAME)
4B3-046
48-57'45"N
120-52'50"W
6
PASAYTEN
BLACK LAKE
4B3-050
48-49'45"N
120-12'25"W
6
PASAYTEN
JERRY LAKES (NORTH)
4B3-044
48-45'40"N
120-55'05"W
6
PASAYTEN
LAKE OF THE PINES
4B3-047
48-52'54"N
120-42'40"W
6
PASAYTEN
LEASE LAKE
4B3-052
48-50'49"N
120-33'30"W
6
PASAYTEN
SHEEP LAKE
4B3-049
48-58'22"N
120-22'40"W
6
PASAYTEN
WHITE LAKES (NORTH)
4B3-048
48-54'33"N
120-32'55"W
6
WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
AMERICAN LAKE
4B2-023
46-49'05"N
121-27'29"W
6
WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
DEER LAKE
4B2-057
46-39'03"N
121-24'38"W
6
WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
DUMBBELL LAKE
4B2-021
46-41'30"N
121-22'45"W
6
WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
PEAR LAKE
4B2-062
46-44'20"N
121-18'50"W
6
WILLIAM 0. DOUGLAS
SHELLROCK LAKE
4B2-022
46-41'05"N
121-20'40"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-025
47-13'40"N
122-58'25"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-032
47-41'02"N
121-44'28"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-037
47-52'01"N
121-33'25"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-042
48-09'48"N
121-55'58"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-045
48-25'30"N
121-49'08"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-049
48-36'05"N
120-56'35"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B2-065
46-06'30"N
121-46'04"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-023
47-32*30"N
122-54'38"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-027
47-35'05"N
121-50'45"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-028
47-38'52"N
121-46'45"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-030
47-41'45"N
121-58'32"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-031
47-42'55"N
121-52'00"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-056
47-39'33"N
123-29'20"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
483-065
47-41'38"N
121-58'22"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4B3-067
48-42'30"N
122-26'20"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4C3-015
48-16'18"N
117-08'55"W
1
NOT IN WILDERNESS
ANNETTE LAKE
4B3-019
47-21'35"N
121-28'20"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BAKER LAKE
4B1-019
47-21"06"N
121-18'02"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BATTALION LAKE
4B2-060
48-20'45"N
120-47'13"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BEROEEN LAKE
4B1-048
48-43'00"N
121-27'45"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BOULDER LAKE
4B3-063
47-58'35"N
123-44'53"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
BOYLE LAKE
4B2-029
47-35'51"N
121-45*22"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CALLIGAN LAKE
4B2-066
47-36'20"N
121-40'00"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CAMP LAKE
4B3-020
47-18'50"N
120-52'47"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CASKEY LAKE
4B3-053
48-24'07"N
121-34'25"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CATFISH LAKE
4B2-026
47-22'00"N
122-50'25"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CEOAR PONDS LAKE
4B3-034
47-48'20"N
121-48'15"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CHAIN LAKE
4B3-036
47-54'15"N
121-58'10"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
CHAMBERS LAKE
4B2-019
46-28'00"N
121-32'00"W
6
NOT IN WILOERNESS
CHENUIS LAKES (SOUTHERN)
4B1-018
46-58'17"N
121-46'42"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
COPPER LAKE
4B2-041
48-01'55"N
121-32'15"W
6
NOT IN WILOERNESS
CORA LAKE
4B3-015
46-41'20"N
121-53'19"W
6
NOT IN WILDERNESS
COUNCIL LAKE
4B2-018
46-16'00"N
121-37'40"W
6
-------
A-14
Table A-l. (contd).
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION FS
WILDERNESS NAME LAKE NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE REGION
WASHINGTON
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
DAY LAKE
4B3-040
48-23'58"N
121-57'30"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
OEADWOOO LAKES (SOUTH)
4B2-024
46-53'12"N
121-31'15"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
DIABLO LAKE
4B2-Q50
48-42'45"N
121-06'45"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
OOUBTFUL LAKE
4B1-046
48-28'27"N
121-02*47"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
DUCK LAKE
4B3-014
46-39*48"N
122-19'40"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GOLDEN LAKES (LARGEST)
481-017
46-53*20"N
121-53'55"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GOLDEN LAKES (SW)
4B1-069
46-53'08"N
121-54'23"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GRANITE LAKES (NORTHERN)
4B2-028
47-27'20"N
121-36'52"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HAH RESERVOIR NO. 1
4B3-060
47-19'57"N
120-23'50"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HARTS SWAMP
4B3-033
47-46'32"N
121-56*00"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
HIDOEN LAKE
4B2-070
48-29'45"N
121-11'15"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HOH LAKE
4B3-035
47-53'57"N
123-47'05"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HORSESHOE SLOUGH
4B3-026
47-37*25"N
121-55'20"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HUGHES LAKE
4B2-067
47-57'57"N
121-53'17"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
HULL LAKE
4B3-068
47-39'55"N
121-47"50"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
JASON LAKES (SOUTHERN)
4B2-035
47-42'55"N
120-53'25"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
LAKE ALLEN
4B3-057
46-45'54"N
121-53'3G"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
LAKE ARMSTRONG
4B3-054
47-35'00"N
123-01'11"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE CHAPLAIN
4B3-038
47-57'45"N
121-50'45"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE JULIA
4B2-056
48-03'58"N
121-52'28"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
LAKE JULIUS
4B2-053
47-44'12"N
120-52'30"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE SERENE
4B2-036
47-47'00"N
121-34'!5"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAKE SHERRY
4C3-009
48-36'34"N
117-32 *33"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LAMONT LAKE
4B1-047
48-29'50"N
120-31'27"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LE CONTE LAKE
483-055
46-22"55"N
121-24*05 "W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LITTLE LAKE
4B3-039
48-14'12"N
122-00*02"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOST LAKE
4C3-005
48-49'18"N
117-26"17"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LUNCH LAKE
4B3-061
47-54'57"N
123-46'55"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MAD LAKE
4B2-039
47-56'03"N
120-39*10"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MATTHEWS LAKE
4B2-054
47-28'05"N
122-41'20"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MERRILL LAKE
4B3-011
46-05'35"N
122-19'15"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
OAK PATCH LAKE
4B3-022
47-28'37"N
122-54'52"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
OLALLIE LAKE
4B1-020
47-25'20"N
121-30*35"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SAMISH LAKE
4B3-041
48-40'00MN
122-23'00"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SILVER LAKE
4B1-050
48-59"15"N
121-13'45"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SILVER LAKE
4B3-045
48-58'45"N
122-04'05"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SPIOER LAKE
4B1-C59
47-26*55"N
121-34'15"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
STIRRUP LAKE
483-018
47-17'44"N
121-25'23"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SUNSET LAKE
4B3-016
47-06'34"N
122-00'50"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
TAPTO LAKES (EAST)
4B1-051
48-53*05"N
121-22'05"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
TUSCOHATCHIE LAKE
4B1-021
47-26'00"N
121-28'35"W
6
NOT
IH
WILDERNESS
TWO LAKES (WESTERN)
4B3-012
46-22*06"N
121-27'53"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
U LAKE
4B3-021
47-25'41"N
123-04'23"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
WALLACE LAKE
4B3-037
47-54'15"N
121-40'30"W
6
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
WICKS LAKE
4B2-027
47-27'20"N
122-42'16"W
6
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
WING LAKE
4B2-048
48-31*03"N
120-48'18"W
6
WYOMING
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D1-008
43-21'50»N
109-44'15"W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
401-013
43-14'45"N
109-42'00"W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
401-018
43-06'22"N
109-39*08"W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D1-019
43-04'38"N
109-36* 47**W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D1-021
43-02'30"N
109-43'35"W
BRIOGER
(NO NAME)
401-053
43-14'20"N
109-42'20"W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
401-059
43-02*05"N
109-33*50"W
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
402-018
42-56'52"N
109-38*58"W
-------
A—15
Table A-l. (contd).
LAKE
WILDERNESS NAME
LAKE NAME
IDENTIFICATION
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
FS
REG I
WYOMING
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D2-020
42-56'00"N
109-31'55"W
4
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D2-027
42-47'42"N
109-19'36"W
4
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D2-059
42-52'3511N
109-28'55"W
4
BRIDGER
(NO NAME)
4D2-060
42-58'39"N
109-40'35 "W
4
BRIDGER
BARNES LAKE
402-017
42-57'47"N
109-35'52"W
4
BRIDGER
BLUE LAKE
4D1-035
42-44'31"N
109-13'25"W
4
BRIDGER
BOBS LAKE
4D2-023
42-52'14"N
109-25'00"W
4
BRIDGER
BORUM LAKE
401-016
43-07'15"N
109-46'00"W
4
BRIDGER
BRIDGER LAKES (2 FROM NE)
401-017
43-04'53"N
109-43'15"W
4
BRIDGER
CRESENT LAKE
4D1-009
43-20'06"N
109-44'53"W
4
BRIDGER
CROSS LAKE
4D2-019
42-54'00"N
109-34'20"W
4
BRIDGER
DADS LAKE
4D1-057
43-21'54"N
109-43'45"W
4
BRIDGER
FULL MOON LAKE
4D2-022
42-52'30"N
109-27'43"W
4
BRIDGER
HALLS LAKE
401-058
42-56'17"N
109-24'47"W
4
BRIDGER
KEVIN LAKE
401-010
43-17'00"N
109-42'30"W
4
BRIDGER
LAKE GADSBY
402-013
43-15'30"N
109-52'07"W
4
BRIDGER
LITTLE DIVIDE LAKE
402-025
42-50'13"N
109-28'53"W
4
BRIDGER
LITTLE SENECA LAKE
4D1-022
43-04'00"N
109-39'05"W
4
BRIDGER
PALMER LAKE
402-014
43-08'15"N
109-49'05"W
4
BRIOGER
POSTON LAKE
402-028
42-44'22"N
109-20'05"W
4
BRIDGER
SHIRLEY LAKE
402-012
43-16'00"N
109-51'50"W
4
BRIDGER
SHOESTRING LAKE
401-028
42-56'45"N
109-25'30"W
4
BRIDGER
SPIDER LAKE
401-023
43-01'00"N
109-34'25"W
4
BRIDGER
UPPER SILVER LKS(E)
402-052
42-48'51"N
109-22'15"W
4
BRIOGER
VALLEY LAKE
402-021
42-55'50"N
109-28'40"W
4
BRIDGER
WARBONNET LAKE
402-026
42-49'05"N
109-23'27"W
4
CLOUD PEAK
(NO NAME)
4D2-044
44-26'42"N
107-11'15"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
(NO NAME)
402-045
44-23'35"N
107—11'00"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
(NO NAME)
402-046
44-21'07"N
107-12' 11"VI
2
CLOUD PEAK
(NO NAME)
402-051
44-23'11"N
107-12'32"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
DUNCAN LAKE
403-061
44-30'07"N
107-14'37"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
FIREHOLE LAKES (MIODLE)
402-049
44-15'00"N
107-03'30"W
2
CLOUO PEAK
LOST LAKE
402-043
44-29'40"N
107-17'15"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
SAWTOOTH LAKES (SOUTHERN)
4D2-047
44-24'25"N
107-09'37"W
2
CLOUD PEAK
STULL LAKES (NORTHERN)
402-042
44-35'40"N
107-19'25"W
2
FITZPATRICK
(NO NAME)
401-011
43-16'25"N
109-38'53"W
2
FITZPATRICK
(NO NAME)
401-014
43-13'10"N
109-39'32"W
2
FITZPATRICK
(NO NAME)
401-020
43-05'07"N
109-30'15"W
2
FITZPATRICK
(NO NAME)
401-024
43-03'27"N
109-31'15"W
2
FITZPATRICK
BOONE LAKE
401-007
43-26'37"N
109-42'33"W
2
FITZPATRICK
MOOSE LAKE
401-015
43-13'15"N
109-30'50"W
2
GROS VENTRE
(NO NAME)
403-030
43-29'32"N
110-34'20"W
4
GROS VENTRE
(NO NAME)
403-033
43-20'20"N
110-13'50"W
4
GROS VENTRE
BOX LAKE
403-031
43-25'45"N
110-29'00"W
4
JEDIDIAH SMITH
HIDDEN LAKE
403-022
44-00'24"N
110-56'00"W
4
POPO AGIE
(NO NAME)
401-033
42-51'06"N
109-14'31"W
2
POPO AGIE
(NO NAME)
401-036
42-47'41"N
109-11'42"W
2
POPO AGIE
(NO NAME)
401-038
42-40'13"N
109-01'15"W
2
POPO AGIE
(NO NAME)
401-039
42-38'10"N
108-57'52"W
2
POPO AGIE
(NO NAME)
401-056
42-50'23"N
109-14'32"W
2
POPO AGIE
OUTCH OVEN LAKE
401-034
42-50'39"N
109-11'37"W
2
POPO AGIE
ICE LAKES (NORTHEAST)
401-037
42-43'15"N
109-05'00"W
2
POPO AGIE
STOUGH CREEK LAKES(LG NW)
401-051
42-39'22"N
109-01'10"W
2
TETON
FERRY LAKE
403-024
43-56'45"N
109-57'55"W
4
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
401-003
44-58*45"N
109-33'40"W
2
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D1-004
44-57'10"N
109-30'15"W
2
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
401-006
44-38'25"N
110-22'40"W
1
NOT IN WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D1-025
43-00'36"N
109-26'50"W
2
-------
A—16
Table A-l. (contd).
LAKE
IDENTIFICATION FS
WILDERNESS NAME LAKE NAME NO. LATITUOE LONGITUDE REGION
WYOMING
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D1-029
42-57*42"N
109-21'27*'W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D1-030
42-56'51"N
109-19'28"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D1-031
42-53'38"N
109-15'50"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
402-009
45-00'03"N
109—31' 50*'W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D2-024
42-53'37"N
109-14'31"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D2-030
42-35'24"N
108-53'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D2-056
43-25'13"N
109-49'35"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-012
44-55'00"N
110-42'32"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-015
44-47'54"N
110-45'53"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-018
44-30'30"N
110-22'45"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-019
44-22'25"N
110-27*10"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-020
44—10'37'N
110-17'00"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-025
43-52'30"N
110-43'45"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
403-028
43-47'41"N
109-32'28"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
403-032
43-25'15"N
110-01'55"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
403-037
42-44'47"N
110-45'22"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
403-048
44-24'50"N
107-22'05"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-070
42-55'18"N
110-21'45"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4D3-073
44-49'45"N
110-50'35"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
403-075
44-13'05"N
111-01'40"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E2-001
41-23'27"N
106-21'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E2-002
41-22'24"N
106-19'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E2-005
41-19'50"N
106-20'54"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E2-061
41-22'17"N
106-19'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E3-001
42-36'40"N
106-04'56"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E3-002
41-25'29"N
106-19'54"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
(NO NAME)
4E3-003
41-21'04"N
106-15'48"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
BAPTISTE LAKE
4D1-032
42-52'30"N
109-18'25"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
CHAIN LAKES (LARGEST)
4D3-035
42-58'19"N
109-53'36"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
DOLLAR LAKE
402-010
44-55'06"N
109-29'25"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
FERN LAKE
4D3-017
44-40'40"N
110-16'30"W
1
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
FLAT LAKE
4D2-011
43-26'45"N
109-49'45"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GEM LAKE
402-048
44-24'05"N
107-02'52"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GOOSE LAKE
403-052
44-32'30"N
110-50'30 "W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
GRASSY LAKE RESERVOIR
403-021
44_07'40"N
110-48'30"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
ISLAND LAKE
4D1-063
44-56'50"N
109-32'30"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KIRKLANO LAKE
4D2-015
43-08'10"N
109-23'45"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
KISINGER LAKES (NW)
4D3-057
43-44'28"N
109-55'53"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LITTLE BEAR LAKE
401-064
. 44-56'30"N
109-31'30"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LONG LAKE
401-065
44-56'45"N
109-30'07"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOOKOUT LAKE
4E2-006
41-20'45"N
106-19'15"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOON LAKE
403-060
44-06'55"N
110-57'00"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOST LAKE
403-058
43-00'42"N
110-51*37"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
LOWER SWEENEY LAKE
402-016
42-59'32"N
109-41'35"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MC BRIDE LAKE
4D3-013
44-57'52"N
110-15'00"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MILKY LAKES (SOUTHWEST)
4D1-027
42-59'00"N
109-27'12"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MIRROR LAKE
4E2-058
41-20'19"N
106-19'07"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
MOERKE LAKE
4E3-063
41-29'13"N
106-25'22"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
NEW FORK LAKES (SW)
403-034
43-05'30"N
109-57'18"W
4
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
NYMPH LAKE
403-016
44-45'03"N
110-43'36"W
1
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
PETES LAKE
402-029
42-44'40"N
108-57'30"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
SAWMILL LAKES (NE)
403-047
44-37'33"N
107-17'38"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SHELF LAKES (SW)
4E2-004
41-22'35"N
106-17'33"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
SOUTH GAP LAKE
4E2-003
41-22'10"N
106-17'55"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
TIGEE LAKE
401-026
43-00'28"N
109-20*20"W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
TRAPPER LAKE
403-074
43-49'49"N
110-43'55"W
4
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
UPPER NORTH CROW RES.
4E3-004
41-14*12"N
105-17 '00'*W
2
NOT
IN
WILDERNESS
WALL LAKE
401-054
44-59'05"N
109-33'05"W
1
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
WEST TENSLEEP LAKE
403-049
44-15'40"N
107-12'54"W
2
NOT
IN
WILOERNESS
WORTHERN MEADOW RES.
403-039
42-42*00"N
108-55'15"W
2
-------
A-17
Table A-2. List of lakes in National Parks
LAKE
NAME OF
IDENTIFICATION
NATIONAL PARK
LAKE NAME
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
CALIFORNIA
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-029
37-10'20"N
118-44'40"U
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-033
37-01'45"N
118-41'45"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-034
37-04'00"N
118-38'20"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-035
37-01'37"N
118-29'30"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-038
36-54'10"N
118-33'30"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-040
36-48'15"N
118-25*10"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-041
36-43'05"N
118-31'50"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-053
36-48'40"N
118-25'49"W
KINGS CANYON
(NO NAME)
4A1-056
37-08'40"N
118-39'50"W
KINGS CANYON
HORSESHOE LAKES (MIDDLE)
4A1-036
36-56'37"N
118-34'15"W
KINGS CANYON
STOCKING LAKE
4A1-039
36-52'15"N
118-22'15"W
KINGS CANYON
SWAMP LAKES (WESTERN)
4A1-037
36-53'20"N
118-43'25"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
(NO NAME)
4A3-010
40-31'27"M
121-24'48"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
EMERALD LAKE
4A3-012
40-28'05"N
121-31'04"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
FEATHER LAKE
4A3-011
40-31'30"N
121-22'45"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
GLEN LAKE
4A2-003
40-27'12"N
121-15'54"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
LITTLE BEAR LAKE
4A3-072
40-31'22"N
121-24'21"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
SHADOW LAKE
4A3-054
40-29'45"N
121-28'05"W
LASSEN VOLCANIC
SWAN LAKE
4A3-013
40-29'52"N
121-21'45"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-042
36-40'55"N
118-24'25"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-043
36-36'25"N
118-38'45"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-044
36-39'40"N
118-26'00"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-045
36-37'20"N
118-20'45"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-046
36-34'37"N
118-32'04"W
SEQUOIA
(NO NAME)
4A1-047
36-31'37"N
118-18'20"W
SEQUOIA
BIG FIVE LAKES (SMALL N)
4A1-048
36-29'04"N
118-31'10"W
SEQUOIA
HOCKETT LAKES (CENTER)
4A2-045
36-21'29"N
118-39'58"W
SEQUOIA
WRIGHT LAKES(NW)
4A1-060
36-38'11"N
118-22'00"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-006
38-05'12"N
119-42'19"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-008
38-04'15"N
119-46'53"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-010
38-03'30"N
119-39'09"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-016
37-42'15"N
119-17'15"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A1-055
38-05'10"N
119-40'24"W
YOSEMITE
(NO NAME)
4A2-036
37-57'10"N
119-50'17"W
YOSEMITE
BINGAMAN LAKE
4A1-015
37-50'45"N
119-14'45"W
YOSEMITE
LAKE VERNON
4A1-009
38-00'50"N
119-43'22"W
YOSEMITE
MARY LAKE
4A1-007
38-08'39"N
119-33'40"W
YOSEMITE
VOGELSANG LAKE
4A1-059
37-47'12"N
119-20'35"W
COLORADO
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
(NO NAME)
4E1-011
40-29'15"N
105-38'40"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
(NO NAME)
4E1-016
40-21'29"N
105-45'05"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
(NO NAME)
4E1-017
40-20'35"N
105-43'55"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
(NO NAME)
4E1-019
40-18'47"N
105-43'45"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
(NO NAME)
4E1-035
40-10'04"N
105-41'54"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
ARROWHEAD LAKE
4E1-014
40-23'00"N
105-45'40"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
AZURE LAKE
4E1-015
40-22'18"N
105-46'15"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BLACK LAKE
4E1-025
40-15'55"N
105-38'27"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BLUEBIRD LAKE
4E1-051
40-11'30"N
105-39'15"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
BOX LAKE
4E1-030
40-12'47"N
105-38'53"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
CHIQUITA LAKE
4E1-013
40-26'28"N
105-40'42"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FIFTH LAKE
4E1-029
40-12'47"N
105-40'44"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FINCH LAKE
4E1-038
40-11'00"N
105-35'33"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
FOURTH LAKE
4E1-054
40-13'18"N
105-41'07"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
GLASS LAKE
4E1-023
40-16'52"N
105-39'55"W
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
HAYNACH LAKES (NW)
4E1-018
40-20'47"N
105-45'55"W
-------
A—18
Table A-2. List of lakes in National Parks
LAKE
NAME OF IDENTIFICATION
NATIONAL PARK LAKE NAME NO. LATITUDE LONGITUDE
COLORADO
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
HUTCHESON LAKES(NORTHERN) 4E1-037
40-10'26"N
105-38'50"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
JEWEL LAKE
4E1-024
40-17'12"N
105-38'23"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
OUNCO LAKE
4E1-034
40-11'01"N
105-39'45"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
KEPLINGER LAKE
4E1-032
40-14'33"N
105-37'28"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LAKE HAIYAHA
4E1-022
40-18'17"N
105-39'45"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LAKE HUSTED
4E1-010
40-30'35"N
105-36'36"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LAKE NANITA
4E1-027
40-15'23"N
105-43'00"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LAKE POWELL
4E1-026
40-15'17"N
105-39'35"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LAKE VERNA
4E1-028
40-13'35"N
105-42'28"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
LOOMIS LAKE
4E1-020
40-20'16"N
105-41'45"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
MILLS LAKE
4E1-060
40-17'20"N
105-38'25"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
MIRROR LAKE
4E1-053
40-32*15"N
105-41'52"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
SANDBEACH LAKE
4E1-033
40-13'08"N
105-36'05"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
SHEEP LAKES (LG.NW)
4E3-055
40-24'17"N
105-37'15"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
SNOWBANK LAKE
4E1-031
40-14'25"N
105-38"40"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
SNOWDRIFT LAKE
4E1-058
40-18'25"N
105-44'04"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
SPECTACLE LAKES (NW)
4E1-012
40-27'04"N
105-40'30"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
TIMBER LAKE
4E1-057
40-22'27"N
105-47'45"W
ROCKY
MOUNTAIN
TWO RIVERS LAKE
4E1-021
40-19'17"N
105-40'55"W
MONTANA
GLACIER
(NO NAME)
4C3-002
48-56'34"N
113-43'00"W
GLACIER
(NO NAME)
4C3-004
48-49'10"N
113-56'22"W
GLACIER
COBALT LAKE
4C3-013
48-26"04"N
113-25'30"W
GLACIER
FEATHER WOMAN LAKE
4C3-010
48-37'04"N
113-46"38"W
GLACIER
GLENNS LAKE
4C3-062
48-54'10"N
113-47"30"W
GLACIER
HARRISON LAKE
4C3-011
48-31'10"N
113-46'00"W
WASHINGTON
MOUNT
RAINIER
CHENUIS LAKES (SOUTHERN) 4B1-018
46-58'17"N
121-46'42"W
MOUNT
RAINIER
GOLDEN LAKES (LARGEST) 4B1-017
46-53'20"N
121-53'55"W
MOUNT
RAINIER
GOLDEN LAKES (SW)
4B1-069
46-53'08"N
121-54'23"W
MOUNT
RAINIER
LAKE ALLEN
4B3-057
46-45'54"N
121-53'30"W
NORTH
CASCADES
BERDEEN LAKE
4B1-048
48-43'00"N
121-27'45"W
NORTH
CASCADES
DOUBTFUL LAKE
4B1-046
48-28'27"N
121-02'47"W
NORTH
CASCADES
HIDDEN LAKE
4B2-070
48-29'45"N
121-11'15"W
NORTH
CASCADES
SILVER LAKE
4B1-050
48-59'15"N
121-13'45"W
NORTH
CASCADES
TAPTO LAKES (EAST)
4B1-051
48-53'05"N
121-22'05"W
OLYMPIC
(NO NAME)
4B3-032
47-50'23"N
123-11"18"W
OLYMPIC
(NO NAME)
4B3-056
47-39'33"N
123-29'20"W
OLYMPIC
BOULDER LAKE
4B3-063
47-58'35"N
123-44'53"W
OLYMPIC
HOH LAKE
4B3-035
47-53'57"N
123-47'05"W
OLYMPIC
LUNCH LAKE
4B3-061
47-54'57"N
123-46"55"W
WYOMING
GRAND
TETON
(NO NAME)
4D3-025
43-52'30"N
110-43'45"W
GRAND TETON
GRASSY LAKE RESERVOIR 4D3-021
44-07'40"N
110-48'30"W
GRAND
TETON
TRAPPER LAKE
4D3-074
43-49'49"N
110-43'55"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
401-006
44-38'25"N
110-22'40"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
403-012
44-55*00"N
110-42'32"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
403-015
44_47'54"N
110-45'53"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
4D3-018
44-30'30"N
110-22'45"W
-------
A—19
Table A-2. List of lakes in National Parks
LAKE
NAME OF
IDENTIFICATION
NATIONAL PARK
LAKE NAME
NO.
LATITUDE
LONGITUDE
WYOMING
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
403-019
44-22'25"N
110-27'10"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
403-020
44-10'37'N
110-17'00"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
4D3-073
44-49'45"N
110-50'35"W
YELLOWSTONE
(NO NAME)
403-075
44-13'05"N
111-01'40"W
YELLOWSTONE
FERN LAKE
403-017
44-40'40"N
110-16'30"W
YELLOWSTONE
GOOSE LAKE
403-052
44-32'30"N
110-50'30"W
YELLOWSTONE
MC BRIDE LAKE
403-013
44-57'52"N
U0-15'00"W
YELLOWSTONE
NYMPH LAKE
403-016
44-45*03"N
110-43'36"W
-------
APPENDIX B
CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
-------
IN REPLY REFER TO:
W. 11 (I)
M.ll(I)
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Endangered Species, Field Office
Federal Bldg., U.S. Courthouse
301 South Park
P.O. Box 10023
Helena, Montana 59626
January 2, 1985
Mr. Ronald A. Lee
Acting Chief, Environmental Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Lee:
Thank you for contacting us regarding the western lakes
portion of the national acid rain surface water survey. The
Federally listed as endangered or threatened species that may
occur, either seasonally or as residents, in the project area
in Montana and Wyoming include; the bald eagle, peregrine falcon,
whooping crane, gray wolf and grizzly bear.
To minimize any potential impacts to listed speices, we encourage
scheduling helicopter flights that minimize noise impacts by flying
to and fromthe sample sites as high as possible; and preferrably
above 1200 feet above ground. In addition, as a precautionary measurer
we would recommend that the time spent operating helicopters at low
altitudes above the sample site be held to a minimum. Overall, we
have no substantive concerns that the proposed project will impact
listed endangered or threatened species that may occur in the sampling
areas in Montana and Wyoming.
We have contacted our Ecological Services Division in Billings,
Montana. Mr. Bill Jones of that office will be contacting you
soon. His FTS number is 585-6750. He is the FWS Environmental
Contarninat Coordinator for Montana and Wyoming.
Please keep us on your mailing list so we can track this project.
Again, thank you for your efforts to conserve listed species.
S incerely,
Wayne G. Brewster
Field Supervisor
Endangered Species
B -1
-------
United Stales Department of the Interi
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
2800 Cottage Way, Room E-1823
Sacramento, California 95825
ENVIRONMENTAL EYAUiAnCM
BRATtCH
3 January 1985
Mr. Ronald A. Lee, Acting Chief
Environmental Evaluation Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
In reply refer to:
1-1-85-SP-123
Subject: Environmental Assessment for California Lakes Portion
of the National Acid Rain Surface Water Survey
Dear Mr. Lee:
This letter responds to your recent request for information regarding
possible impacts to endangered and threatened species from the proposed
activity. To the best of our knowledge, and with the information provided
in your letter (M/S 443) , we anticipate no impact to any listed or
proposed species in California.
The endangered bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) occurs at or near
many of the lakes listed in your report. Nesting occurs at some localities
.(e.g., Snag Lake and Lake Alnianor) . However, because your sampling is
proposed in the autumn, after the nesting season, we believe no impacts
will result.
If we may be of further assistance, please contact Dr. Jack Williams of
my staff at the above address or at 916/484-4935. Thank you for your
concern.
Sincerely,
cc: Regional Director, Portland, OR (AFA-SE)
Field Supervisor, Sacramento, CA (ES-S)
Field Supervisor, Laguna Niguel, CA (ES-LN)
B-2
-------
'^35E>
United States Department of the Interior
IN REPLY REFER TO:
U. S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
ENDANGERED SPECIES Cr"v *
207C A-Jr-:i Miration Sur.cV.r.rj
1745 VViot 17CC Souvh
Sail La'r;c C'.iy, Utah 54104
January 8, 1985
JAN 111S5
Ronald A. Lee
Environmental Evaluation Branch
ENVl^M|HgiEVAUWTION
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Lee:
We have reviewed your undated letter which was received in this office on
December 17, 1984 concerning the proposal by your agency to conduct a
national acid rain surface water survey.
It appears that listed endangered and threatened species, or species proposed
for listing, may occur in the area of influence of this action. Therefore,
we are furnishing you the following list of species and critical habitat
which may be present in the concerned area:
The Federal agency should review their proposed action and determine if the
action would affect any listed species or their critical habitat. You
should also determine if the action is likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of proposed species or result in the destruction or an adverse
modification of any critical habitat proposed for such species. If the
determination is "may affect" for listed species you must request in writing
formal consultation from the Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice (FWS) at the address given above. In addition, if you determine that
the proposed action is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
proposed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
proposed critical habitat, you must confer with the FWS. At this time you
should provide this office a copy of the biological assessment and any other
relevant information that assisted you in reaching your conclusion.
Listed
Peregrine falcon
Bald eagle
Falco peregrinus
Haliaeetus leucoceohalus
B-3
-------
Specific concerns the FWS has about this project and its potential impacts
on T&E species are as follows:
1. Both of the above species may occur in one or more of the lake areas to
be surveyed. Our only concerns would be if the timetable for the
sampling would be changed to occur during the spring nesting, period.
This would be from March 1 to June 30. If this does not occur and all
of the work is done in the fall, no listed species should be impacted.
The FWS can enter into formal Section 7 consultation only with another
Federal agency or its designee. State, county, or any other governmental or
private organizations can participate in the consultation process, help
prepare information such as the biological assessment, participate in meet-
ings, etc.
Your attention is also directed to Section 7(d) of the Endangered Species
Act, as amended, which underscores the requirement that the Federal agency
or the applicant shall not make any irreversible or irretrievable commit-
ment of resources during the consultation period which, in effect, would
deny the formulation or implementation of reasonable and prudent alterna-
tives regarding their actions on any endangered or threatened species.
We are prepared to assist you whenever you have questions which we may be
able to answer. If we can be of further assistance, please advise us.
The FWS representative who will provide you technical assistance is Robert
Benton, FTS: 583-4430.
Sincerely,
Robert G. Ruesink
Acting Field Supervisor
B-4
-------
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
endangered species program
4620 Overland Road, Rocrn 209
Boise, Idaho 83705
January 10, 1985
11
• i
—i
I (
Ronald A. Lee
Environmental Protection Agency-
Region X :
1200 Sixth Avenue
Seattle, Washington 98101
Dear Mr. Lee:
This responds to your letter of December 17, 1984, proposing the Environmental
Assessment for the western lakes portion of the national acid rain surface
•water survey. We have reviewed it for irrpacts to migratory birds, anadrcraous
fish, and federally-listed threatened and endangered species. Our ccrrrnents
are provided on a technical assistance basis.
The inpacts on migratory birds and anadrcraous fish would be insignificant.
Attachment A lists endangered, threatened and candidate species that may be
present in your project areas.
Candidate species are included for your information. These species are pres-
ently being reviewed by this Service for consideration of listing as threat-
ened or endangered. It should be noted that candidate species have no pro-
tection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), as amended, but are
included for your early planning consideration. Candidate species could be
formally proposed and listed in the future, thereby, falling within the scope
of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. We suggest you consider informal
consultation with this office if the project is likely to irrpact a candidate"
species.
Re: National Acid Rain Survey
ER #84/1600, FWS-1-4-85-SP-80
(1019.0100)
B-5
-------
You should conduct a biological assessment to determine if listed species ara
likely to be affected (adversely or beneficially) by your project. If a listed
species will be affected, your agency should request formal Section 7 consulta-
tion frcm my office. If you have additional questions regarding your respon-
sibilities under the ESA, please contact Mr. Jay Gore at FTS: 554-1806.
Attachment
cc: FVVS, Portland (AFA-SE)
FVVS, Boise (ES)
FWS, EC, Washington, D.C.
IDFG, Hdqtrs., Boise
Sincerely yours,
John P. Wolfiin
Field Supervisor
2
B-6
-------
Attachment A
LISTED AND PROPOSED ENDANGERED AND THREATENED
SPECIES, AND CANDIDATE SPECIES, THAT NftY OCCUR
WITHIN THE EA SURVEY" AREA PGR ACID RAIN
IN ASSORTED COUNTIES, IDAHO
. 1-4-85-SP-80
LISTED SPECIES
Gray Wolf (Canis lupus) - Lakes in central Idaho.
Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos) - Lakes in Bonner and Boundary Counties, Idaho.
Woodland Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) - Lakes in Bonner and Boundary
Counties, Idaho.
PROPOSED SPECIES
None
CANDIDATE SPECIES - Plant
Aster jessicae (Reman Nose Lakes, T6IN, R2W, Sec. 16)
3
B-7
-------
APPENDIX C
NOISE
-------
C-l
The following tables (Tables C-l, C-2, and C-3) are from FA A sources on
performance of the Bell 206L (Long Ranger) helicopter (Newman et al. 19S2).
From these tables one can estimate the sound intensities likely to accrue in the
vacinity of the helicopter activity in the wilderness. No attempt has been made
to assess the degree of attenuation that would occur due to vegetation and
terrain, nor reflections from rock cliffs, etc. Helicopters would not be expected
to climb or approach lakes at the angles and speeds used in these tables because
of the terrain. While intensities would thus be higher, the duration would
decrease with a faster ascent or descent. Level flyovers in Table C-2 are at
altitudes of 500 ft, while it would be recommended that helicopters fly at a 2,000
ft elevation above terrain for the purposes of the lake study. Noise curve data
are not available for level flyovers of 2,000 ft.
-------
C-2
Table C-l.Bell 206L Takeoff/Approach Data Table (Source: Newman et
al. 1982)
Takeoff Approach
CPA3 Distance (FT) SELb (dB) SEL (dB)
200
89.2
89.3
400
84.9
85.2
600
82.3
82.7
1000
78.7
79.4
2000
73.4
74.7
4000
67.9
69.4
6000
63.9
65.7
10000
58.3
60.4
Takeoff Notes
Vy (Speed for best
rate of climb) - 52 kts
BRC (Best rate of climb) - 1380 feet per minute (fpm)
Climb Angle (degrees) - 15.2°
Climb Gradient (Run/Rise) - 3.7
Takeoff Weight = 4,000 lbs
Approach Notes
Vy (Speed for best rate of climb) = 52 kts
Approach Angle (degrees) = 6°
a Closest point of approach.
b Sound exposure level expressed in decibels. The integration of
dB^ time history, normalized to 1 sec. SEL numbers would be
higher than the corresponding dB^ numbers depending on the
context.
-------
Table C-2. Bell 206L Level Flyover Data Table (Source: Newman et al. 1982)
CPA3 Vb=60 kts V=80 kts V-100 kts V=114.3 kts V=120 kts V=130 kts
Distance (FT) SELC (dB) SEL (dB) SEL (dB) SEL (dB) SEL (dB) SEL (dB)
200
90.5
88.4
87.3
87
87.2
88.5
400
86.2
84.1
83.0
82.7
82.9
84.2
600
83.6
CO
•
80.4
80.1
80.3
81.6
1000
80.1
78.0
76.9
76.6
76.8
78.1
2000
74.9
72.8
71.7
71.4
71.6
72.9
4000
69.6
67.5
66.4
66.1
66.3
67.6
6000
65.6
63.5
62.4
62.1
62.3
63.6
10000
59.9
57.8
56.7
56.4
56.6
57.9
aClosest point of approach.
^Velocity in level flight.
cSound exposure level expressed in decibels.
-------
C-4
Table C-3. Bell 206L Hover Data Table3 (Source: Newman et al. 1982)
A B C
CPAb A1r-to-Ground
Distance (FT) Ground-to-Ground Low Angle 0GEc Hover OGE Hover Direct Climb
200
85.0
88.0
90
400
78.2
81.2
83.7
600
73.5
76.5
80.8
1000
66.1
69.1
75.1
2000
56.5
59.4
68.0
4000
47.4
50.4
60.2
6000
42.1
45.1
55.1
10000
35
38.0
48.0
Application
Stationary Hover
Stationary Hover
Direct Climb
Hover Taxi Hover Taxi
aDeta1led understanding of the derivation of these figures requires
consulting Newman et al. 1982.
bClosest point of approach.
c0ut-of-ground effect.
-------
APPENDIX D
SAFETY
-------
D-l
The NTSB has analyzed data for rotorcraft accidents for the years 1977
through 1979, during which time a total of 890 helicopter accidents occurred,
including 125 fatal accidents in which 205 persons died. [These data are compiled
in NTSB 1981a, and supported by data listed in NTSB 1981b and also by daia
gathered for 1980 (NTSB 1984a)]. These data form the basis for the discussion
which follows.
Accident Types
Forty percent of the accidents in which the rotorcraft were destroyed had
accompanying fatalities. Fire after impact occurred in only 9% of the accidents
and 32 involved fatalities. In many high-altitude areas, forest fire possibility is
remote (low oxygen and organic fuel sources). More than 40% of the rotorcraft
accidents with fires after impact were fatal, while only 11 % with no fire after
impact were fatal. During the study period, the most frequent accident type was
engine failure or malfunction (256), which included accidents that occurred after
a power loss for any reason. The power losses were most often the result of
powerplant mechanical problems (181) or fuel exhaustion (45), fuel starvation (17),
or fuel contamination (8). These failures/ malfunctions occurred most frequently
during flight (186) vs on takeoff (44) or landing (25). The next most frequent
accident types were collisions with obstacles and controlled or uncontrolled
collisions with the ground or water. Fatalities most frequently occurred in
collisions between aircraft in flight (66.7% fatal), airframe failures in flight and
propeller failures (50% fatal), uncontrolled collisions with the ground or water
(37.8% fatal), and main rotor failure (26.3% fatal). These fatalities did not occur
chiefly during take-offs or landings: accidents which occurred during the in-flight
phase of operation (i.e., cruising or overflight) were the ones which most
frequently resulted in fatalities (26%). Only 10.5% of the accidents which
occurred in the landing phase of the operation were fatal.
The NTSB and the FAA both collect data on aircraft accidents. The closest
category to the. type of flying demanded for the proposed survey is the NTSB
category "aerial observation," which includes the NTSB categories of aerial
survey, aerial mapping, hunting, fish spotting, power and pipeline patrol, police
patrol, search and rescue, and highway traffic advisory. Such a categorization is
the most compatible with the FAA category of "other." The FAA is the only
known collector of data on the types of aircraft use by which they stratify flight
exposure data (flying hours). Using this categorization, helicopters involved in
aerial observation activities represented about 25% of the total helicopter hours
flown and had an accident rate of 12.09/100,000 h flown. For the 1977-1979 study
period, aerial observation category accidents totaled 58, of which 16 (27.6%)
involved fatal injuries, 6 serious injuries, 12 minor injuries, and 24 no injuries.
This reported fatality rate was the highest of all categories of flying. Twenty one
of the 58 accidents involved engine failure/malfunction.
Accident Causal Factors
Pilot. The pilot was the major cause or a related factor in the accidents in
the 1977-1979 study. More than 64% of the accidents in which the NTSB cited a
probable cause fell into this category. The pilot was cited as a cause or related
factor in 60% of the fatal accidents in which a probable cause was determined.
As many as two-thirds of the pilots involved in rotorcraft accidents were flying in
-------
D-2
a professional capacity. Eighty-three percent of the pilots in the aerial
observation category accidents had commercial licenses. Ninety-three percent of
the helicopter pilots in this flying category who were involved in accidents had at
least 1000 h of flying time and 55.2% had over 3000 h of flying time. Thus, the
accidents do not generally involve inexperienced pilots. Sixty-seven percent of
the aerial observation category pilots involved in accidents had over 250 h in the
type of aircraft being flown, and 32.7% had over 500 h flying time in the accident
rotorcraft. Forty-five of these same pilots had at least 100 h flying time in the
accident rotorcraft type within the last 90 d of the accident. Twenty-nine
percent had under 50 h. Data analyzed for factors such as pilot fatigue or
overwork show only 7.4% of these same pilots had flown 9 or more hours in the
24 h prior to the accident.
Environment. Considering all categories of rotorcraft flying during the
study period, there were no fatal accidents in which weather, terrain, or airport
facilities were the chief causal factors. Terrain was cited in 31 nonfatal
accidents and weather was cited in 6 nonfatal accidents. Weather and terrain
were, however, at least contributing factors in numerous accidents (Table D-l).
Although a significant number of rotorcraft accidents were at least partially
caused by unfavorable wind conditions, updrafts and downdrafts, and high-density
altitude, most were not fatal. Low ceiling, fog, rain, and similar conditions which
affected pilot visibility were the most common factors contributing to fatal
accidents. Thirty-eight percent of the accidents which occurred under instrument
flying conditions were fatal, while only 13% of the accidents occurring under
noninstrument conditions were fatal.
Helicopter Type
The accident rates of different helicopter makes and models are affected by
factors such as the number of hours flown, design concepts, the kind of use of the
rotorcraft, and the manufacturing techniques. The quality of the maintenance
can be another factor. The EPA has not yet decided which helicopter types to use
in the proposed action. A combination of piston and turbine models will
undoubtedly be used, with turbine models predominating. Bell long rangers, Bell
jet rangers, Hueys and Lamas are the rotor craft of choice. Based on the
1977-1979 data, accident rates might be as much as twice as high with specific
turbine models as the mean for all turbine models needed at higher altitudes,
although accident rates (but not fatal accidents) for turbine models are generally
significantly lower than for piston models (Table D-2). Using data collected from
1975-1981, the NTSB has projected that turbine engine helicopters could be
expected to have an accident every 11,961.4 flying hours, a fatality every
37,863.3 flying hours, and an accident with one or more fatalities every 72,095.0
flying hours (NTSB. 1984b).
Because the data in Table D-2 may be affected by particularly hazardous or
accident-prone uses, such as aerial spraying and personal/business flying, the data
can be most meaningfully interpreted by considering only the aerial observation
category (roughly termed "other" in FAA exposure data). Piston-powered
rotorcraft accounted for 130 accidents in 860,771 h for a rate of 15.1 accidents
per 100,000 flying hours. Turbine-powered rotorcraft accounted for 74 accidents
in 819,738 h for a rate of 9.0 accidents per 100,000 flying hours. Pilots involved
in turbine-powered rotorcraft accidents are more experienced, in terms of flight
-------
D-3
Table D-l. Weather or terrain factors as contributing causes in
rotorcraft accidents, 1977-1979
Fatal
Accidents
Total
Accidents
Weather
causes/factors
Unfavorable wind conditions
4
40
High-density altitude
1
26
Fog
9
17
Low ceiling
8
18
Downdrafts and updrafts
1
10
Rain
6
7
Snow
2
7
Icing conditions, conditions
2
7
conducive to carburetor icing
Other
_7
23
Total weather cause/factor
40
155
Terrain
causes/factors
High obstructions
13
102
Rough, uneven ground
2
40
Wet, soft ground
0
27
High vegetation
0
21
Other
_3
30
Total terrain cause/factor
18
220
Source: NTSB 1981a.
-------
D-4
Table D-2. Accident rates for piston- and turbine-powered rotorcraft,
1977-1979
Piston-powered Turbine-powered
rotorcraft rotorcraft
Hours flown
Total accident records
Mean total rate per
100,000 h
Fatal accident records
Mean fatal rate per
100,000 h
2,306,550
626
27.14
72
3.12
4,343,932
265
6.10
53
1.22
Source: NTSB 1981a.
Table D-3. Number of accidents by type of power in relation to
in-flight phase of operation
In-flight
phase of operation
Piston
Turbine
Total
Climb to cruise
10
4
14
Normal cruise
102
73
175
Descending
5
4
9
Hovering
28
29
57
Power-on descent
6
1
7
Autorotative descent
5
5
10
Uncontrolled descent
7
7
14
Low pass
11
5
16
Other
23
7
30
Total accident records
197
135
332
Source: NTSB, 1981a.
-------
D-5
time, than are the pilots involved in piston-powered rotorcraft accidents. By the
category of aerial observation, piston-powered rotorcraft accidents had 26.2% of
their accidents involving fatalities, while 31.3% of the turbine-powered rotorcraft
involved fatalities. The NTSB hypothesizes that the greater flying speeds and
higher altitudes resulting in greater impact speeds in turbine-powered rotorcraft
accidents account for, in part, the larger percentage of turbine-powered
rotorcraft accidents that are fatal. Table D-3 summarizes the relationship
between the type of power used and the phase of in-flight operation at the time
of the accident.
Table D-4 presents a summary of the helicopter use during the Fall 1984
lake sampling in the Eastern states. As can be seen, the project scheduled ample
down time for the helicopters due to accommodate poor weather and mechanical
repairs and maintenance. By allowing a flexible schedule, pilots have complete
freedom to use their professional judgment about flying conditions.
-------
D-6
Table D-4. Summary of Helicopter Activity, National Surface Water Survey, Fall 1984
Site
Lakes
Visited
Dates on Site
Days
Active
Helicopter
F1 ight
Hours
Helicopter
Running
Hours
% Down
Time
Duluth, MN
361
10/7/84-11/8/84
22
156.0
98.0
21.0
Rhinelander, WI
399
10/7/84-10/13/84
27
119.3
95.3
18.0
Bangor, ME
178
10/15/84-10/25/84
10
60.4
48.6
0.0
Lexington, MA
355
10/16/84-11/18/84
21
113.4
82.0
38.2
Lake Placid, NY
268
10/8/84-11/9/84
18
89.0
64.7
36.0
Mt. Pocono, PA
182
10/31/84-11/16/84
10
41.1
27.7
41.2
Asheville, NC
117
11/17/84-11/29/84
7
61.1
37.1
36.0
Lakeland, FL
175
12/2/84-12/14/84
10
41.4
25.3
16.7
Total
2035
125
681.7
479.6 MEAN
25.9
*These data are preliminary and subject to revision.
------- |