WETLANDS AT RISK: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT WOLF CREEK PASS SKI AREA, CO Ashley Nielson and Mark Williams Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research and Department of Geography University of Colorado, Boulder, CO Funding Provided by: EPA and NWT LTER

Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area, Colorado Wolf Creek Pass Ski Area Colorado Denver Located on the Continental Divide in Southwest Colorado Small family owned resort Most average annual snowfall of any Colorado ski resort Annual average snowfall of 435 in.

“The Village at Wolf Creek” 288 Acres 2,000 Residential Structures 1,200 Hotel Rooms Designed to house a population of 10,000 users Located in Alberta Basin at 10,500’ Present population of Mineral County is 831 residents

"It's a mess. Our credibility is at stake. What lives on in Southwestern Colorado is at stake. Fifty years from now, Colorado will be a better place if this meadow is just left alone.” Davey Pitcher-President of ski area. “The Premier Mountain Recreational Village in the World” Owners Bob Honts and Red McCombs Highly Controversial “Trying to put a city half the size of Durango on less than 300 acres, at 10,300 feet of elevation and at the snowiest place in Colorado makes no sense whatsoever.” Jeff Berman, Colorado Wild “The development brings the threat of dangerous roads, contaminated water, and harm to the very wildlife and landscape that makes this area so unique. I will not support a project that hurts the community I represent.” Congressman John Salzar “Besides the obvious environmental impacts, such a ridiculous development would steer away most skiers who go to Wolf Creek precisely because it's not Vail,” Mark Pearson, executive director of the San Juan Citizens Alliance.

Problem 93 acres of designated wetlands potentially impacted. Impervious area is estimated to be 50% of the development Will the development change the local hydrology? If so, will that impact the wetlands? Insufficient information on local hydrology to assess impact.

WETLANDS SLOPE WETLANDS DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY

Objectives Determine if wetlands are fed by groundwater (old) or surface/overland flow (new). Water chemistry Water isotopes Quantify loss of potential recharge to wetlands caused by impervious area from development. Snowmelt mass balance

OBJECTIVE Determine if wetlands are fed by groundwater (old) or surface/overland flow (new). Water chemistry Water isotopes

Synoptic Sampling of Surface Waters June 29, 2006 Access issues Samples collected NADP (precip) Snow (late-season) Springs Surface waters Analyzed for: Major Solutes Stable Isotopes Tritium Wolf Creek Sampling Sites Spring2 AL Spring2 Pass Creek AL Spring1 Spring 1 TMB2 TMBI XC2 XC NADP

Groundwater or Precipitation??

Isotope Data: δ 18 O δD= x R 2 =

Tritium Residence Time ~ 1-5 years

Summary: Chemistry, δ 18 O, Tritium Geochemical weathering signal Little difference between surface waters and springs Little variation in δ 18 O Tritium values consistent with age of 1-5 years Most snowmelt infiltrates. Spring and surface waters “old” water.

Objective Quantify loss of potential recharge to wetlands caused by impervious area from development. Snowmelt mass balance

Total Contributing Area = 3.8 km 2

Development Area=1.2 km 2 Contributing Area in Development= 0.77km 2

Wolf Creek Pass Snotel Maximum SWE

Volume of water from total contributing area, on average, is 3,400,000 m 3 Estimated development impervious area is 50% Potentially lose 340,000 m 3 10% of recharge lost Snow Mass Balance

Loss of Infiltration Area Impervious area estimated by the developer is 50% of the total area of the proposed development Bottom line is that we lose about 10% of the recharge area to development However, this is very conservative, since most of the recharge will be in the lower, less steep portion of the contributing area.

Conclusions Wetlands show a strong groundwater signal. 10% of total infiltration lost due to development. Up-gradient development has a strong potential to impact down-gradient wetlands.