Air, Water, and Soil Resources

INYO NATIONAL FOREST ASSESSMENT TOPIC PAPER (NOVEMBER 2013)

Chapter 2: Air, Water, and Soil Resources

Air Resources

Introduction

Process and Methods

Scale of Assessment Air moves across Forest boundaries and air quality effects can occur hundreds of miles from the source. For this purpose, the assessment will be conducted at the scale of air districts, in California, and counties in Nevada. Air districts are boundaries set up by the state of California, and each district has its own rules and regulations. The Forest is almost entirely within the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, with a small portion in the Reds Meadow and Ansel Adams Wilderness area within the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District. The portion of the Forest in Nevada is under the State of Nevada’s “15 Rural County” regulations; counties are the smallest units by which the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection regulates air quality.

Indicators

The following indicators will be used to assess or “measure” the condition and trends of air resources:

Characteristic or attribute Indicator Measure or Unit being measured or assessed Location and size of the Forest in Air quality Particulate Matter (PM10) non-attainment for PM10 Location and size of the Forest in Air quality Ozone non-attainment for Ozone Areas of Forest that exceed Air quality Ecosystem critical loads critical loads. Air quality Annual deciview average at Visibility IMPROVE monitoring sites

Particulate Matter (PM10) and ozone were chosen as indicators since both PM10 and ozone are in non- attainment status within the Inyo National Forest. Ecosystem critical loads were chosen as an air quality indicator since the 2012 Forest Planning Rule requires consideration of ecosystem critical loads for air quality. Visibility was chosen as an indicator since visibility is an Air Quality Related Value (AQRV) of Class I wilderness defined by the Clean Air Act.

General Characteristics of Air Resources

General Air Patterns and Flow Air quality of the Inyo National Forest can be impacted by near and far sources. Concentration of air pollution varies depending on wind patterns and proximity to the source. Wind patterns are driven by migrating pressure fronts and local and regional topography. When the westerly flow of air is strong, air from the Central Valley (San Joaquin and Sacramento Valley Air Basins) can be transported to the Great Basin Valley Air Basin (WRCC 2013). Low pressure off the California coast and a high pressure over the Great Basin will cause air to flow out of the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin to the south (WRCC 2013).

The prevailing winds over the Inyo National Forest are generally West to East or Northwest to Southwest. However, local wind patterns vary considerably throughout the year and even throughout the day due to the greatly varied local topography and temperature gradients in the mountainous area on and surrounding the Forest. Wind can blow upslope, downslope, or up-valley or down-valley on the same day, and wind direction and speed can vary greatly across short distances. During storms, wind can come from all directions in a 24-hour period.

In Bishop, prevailing wind direction is generally out of the north or northwest over most of the year, and out of the south-southeast in July and August (Desert Research Institute 2013, California Air Resources Board 1984). Prevailing winds rarely blow from the east or northeast, but can blow in any direction on a local scale. Therefore, we can infer that fires or other air pollution sources to the south, west and north of the Forest have a potential to affect air quality on the Forest, and those to the east have little potential to affect the Forest’s air quality.

Air Basins and Air Districts The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has divided California into 15 air basins with similar geographical and meteorological features, and some political boundaries (CARB 2012a). Figure 1 displays a map showing air basins in the Inyo National Forest. These basins were further divided into a total of 35 air districts whose role is to regulate the air quality within its boundaries (CARB 2012a). The Inyo National Forest intersects two air basins and districts. Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, must meet all regulations put forth by the air districts. The two Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) within the Inyo National Forest are the San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD and the Great Basin Unified APCD. They are responsible for regulating air quality within and adjacent to the Forest in California.

The Nevada portion of the Forest is in Mineral and Esmeralda Counties, and those counties are regulated under Nevada’s “15 Rural County” regulations. Nevada uses Federal EPA standards for air quality, and has not created their own standards.

Sensitive Air Quality Lands The Clean Air Act of 1977 established Class I air quality areas for wilderness or national park with lands over 5,000 acres in existence in 1977 (CAA). No new Class I areas have been designated since 1977 the exception being land additions to existing Class I areas. The Ansel Adams, John Muir, and Hoover Wildernesses are Class I areas within the Inyo National Forest (Figure 2). This status is designated at the federal level and is permanent.

Figure 1 Map showing location and boundaries of air districts covering the Inyo National Forest. Air districts range widely in size and may cover multiple forests

Figure 2. Map showing the location of Forest Service Class I Wildernesses within the Sierra, Sequoia, and Inyo National Forests. Class I areas are designated by the Clean Air Act and have extra protection against air pollution.

Current Conditions of Air Resources

Emissions Inventories and Geographic Distribution of Air Pollution Emissions types and amount vary between each air district. Yearly emissions inventories by county and air basins are available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB 2011). The pollutants covered by this inventory are the criteria pollutants of total organic gases (TOG), reactive organic gases (ROG), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter (PM), particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). At this time, the most current inventory is for the year 2010. Wind patterns can bring additional pollution into the Great Basin from over the Sierra Nevada Crest (WRCC 2013).

The State of Nevada does not monitor air quality in the two counties that intersect the Forest, Mineral and Esmeralda Counties. Therefore, we do not present air quality data for the Nevada portion of the Forest here. The following table displays total emissions by pollutant type for the air basins within the California portion of the Inyo National Forest for the year 2010.

Table 1. Air emissions by pollutant type for the California Air Districts that cover the Inyo National Forest.

Air Basin Total Air Basin Emissions by Pollutant Type in 2010 (Tons per Day) TOG ROG* CO NOx*# SOx PM PM10+ PM2.5+ Great Basin Valleys 56.5 46.3 51.9 8.0 0.8 135.5 82.2 11.9 San Joaquin Valley 1635.0 360.8 1272.3 523.7 23.7 539.0 301.9 104.3 Figures obtained from California Air Resources Board at http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php *Ozone Precursors +PM10 indicators #Ecosystem nitrogen deposition critical loads include this species of nitrogen

Lands in Non-attainment with Federal and State Air Quality Standards The pollutants for which concentration levels limits are established to protect human health are called criteria pollutants (CAA). All lands within the nation are classified by the amount of air pollution present for each criteria pollutant. When lands exceed the regulatory guidelines they are considered sensitive and are designated as non-attainment. Lands are designated for CAA attainment at both at the federal level by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state level by the California Air Resources Board, and are re-evaluated periodically. Nevada has not monitored air quality in Mineral and Esmeralda Counties, due to populations under their threshold for monitoring, and therefore these counties are considered, “unclassifiable” (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2010). Table 2 depicts federal and California state ambient air quality standards for criteria pollutants.

Table 2. California State and Federal standards for criteria pollutants, adopted from the California Air Resources Board at http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf

Attainment Status Summary for the Inyo National Forest The Inyo National Forest has lands federally designated as in non-attainment for ozone and PM10. Because California standards are stricter than federal standards, the Forest also has lands that are in non-attainment with state standards for ozone, PM2.5, and PM10. See table 3 for a summary of state attainment status for the portions of the Inyo National Forest in California. In Nevada, as of 2010, all of

Esmeralda and Mineral Counties were in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants (Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 2010).

Table 3. State attainment status for the Inyo National Forest. Attainment status is determined for criteria pollutants.

Jurisdiction Pollutant Air Basin Air District County CO Ozone NO2 SO2 Hydrogen PM PM VRP Lead (CA) (O3) Sulfide 2.5 10 Great Basin Great Basin Inyo A N A A A A N U A Valleys Unified Great Basin Great Basin Mono A N A A A A N U A Valleys Unified San San Joaquin Tulare A N A A U N N U A Joaquin Valley Unified Valley San San Joaquin Fresno A N A A U N N U A Joaquin Valley Unified Valley San San Joaquin Madera U N A A U N N U A Joaquin Valley Unified Valley A= Attainment, N=Nonattainment, U= Unclassified

Air Pollution Implementation Plans Applicable to the Inyo National Forest When an area’s air pollution is in non-attainment with regulatory limits, a plan to reduce pollution is prepared. This plan outlines how the area will work towards meeting the attainment standards and must be approved by the EPA. Federal agencies cannot cause changes in air quality that would result in: 1) an area losing attainment status or 2) a worsening of non-attainment status. Federal agencies, such as the Forest Service, must meet all applicable local, state, federal, and tribal implementation plans.

The EPA has approved the following implementation plans for lands within the Inyo National Forest:

• California Fumigant VOC Regulations and Revisions to the California SIP Pesticide Element for San Joaquin Valley • Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 fine particulate (PM2.5) NAAQS • California Regional Haze Plan (California Air Resources Board 2009) • San Joaquin Valley 2012 PM2.5 Plan • San Joaquin Valley 2007 8-hour Ozone Attainment Plan • San Joaquin Valley 2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan • Mammoth Lakes Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) • Owens Lake PM10 State Implementation Plan • Mono Basin PM10 State Implementation Plan

In addition, the Inyo National Forest must meet all rules established by the air districts which apply to lands within the Forest boundary. These rules are used by the air district to meet the obligations put

7 forward by SIPs. The Inyo National Forest is located in both the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). For information on rules for specific activities see the GBUAPCD website (http://www.gbuapcd.org/) and the SJVAPCD website (http://www.valleyair.org/Home.htm).

While each indicator will be discussed separately, it is important to note that multiple pollutants can act together to exacerbate air quality issues. For example, while smoke has always been a natural part of the area’s ecosystem, and has likely affected humans since they first came to the area, the effects are now likely more severe for some people because PM10 from smoke could combine with PM10 from dust storms and high ozone levels. In the Eastern Sierra, this additive effect rarely occurs on the same day, since ozone levels are not as high as in areas closer to population centers, and dust storms generally happen in spring and early summer, while fires usually occur in later summer.

Current Conditions: PM10 PM10, or particulate matter less than 10 micrometers in size, and can affect human health because their small size allows them to reach the lower regions of the respiratory tract. PM10 is among the most harmful of all air pollutants to human health. PM10 can increase the number and severity of asthma attacks, cause or aggravate bronchitis and other lung diseases, and reduce the body's ability to fight infections. Although PM10 can cause health problems for everyone, sensitive populations include children, the elderly, exercising adults, and those suffering from asthma or bronchitis (CARB 2009).

PM10 and PM2.5 can be generated by on- and off-forest activities. Potential particulate matter sources from the Inyo National Forest are:

• Prescribed fires • Wildfires • Driving on unpaved roads • Ground disturbance/vegetation loss or lake drying leading to windblown dust • Fuel combustion

Although PM10 can be created from the above sources, of the most relevance to management of the Forest are smoke and dust. Each will be discussed further below.

Smoke California Smoke Emissions Regulations

Smoke from both wildland and prescribed fires affect the air quality in in the Sierra Nevada bioregion and the Inyo National Forest. These impacts are short term, meaning that smoke from fires can be severe but are limited to when fires are burning. Smoke often impacts more than a single basin when present and can be transported great distances from its source.

District Rules Regarding Open Burning (Prescribed Fire)

California’s Code of Regulations, Title 17 Subchapter 2 Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning sets forth smoke management requirements. The requirements set forth by the state are then implemented by air districts. Coordination between the Forest Service and air districts are required for prescribed burning permission. Local air districts have established regulations to minimize smoke impacts from prescribed fires (CARB 2008). The Inyo National Forest is subject to the rules of the air district in which Forest management activities occur. The SJVAPCD and GBUAPCD’s requirements for prescribed fire are summarized as follows:

• Permits must be obtained • Vegetation criteria must be met • Burning must not be conducted on a “No Burn Day” • Smoke Management Plan must be submitted

For additional information see the GBUAPCD website (http://www.gbuapcd.org/) and the SJVAPCD website (http://www.valleyair.org/Home.htm).

Factors Influencing Smoke Production and Dispersal from Fire Meteorology, topography, and vegetation influence smoke characteristics of both wildland and prescribed fire. Meteorology will determine where and how long smoke from a fire will be present through wind patterns. Topography can influence smoke concentrations as mountain ridges can trap smoke in valleys. Vegetation characteristics such as moisture levels, density, and structure can influence the amount of smoke produced by a fire.

Figure 3. An example of smoke settling into the valleys of the southern Sierra Nevada during the Lion Fire of 2011. Both the topography (steep mountains of the Sierra Nevada) and the meteorology (weather and wind patterns) affected the smoke produced by the fire. Photo courtesy of David Kerr.

Prescribed Fires

As described in the Chapter 3 – Drivers and Stressors topic paper and summarized below, the Forest Service conducts prescribed fire on the Inyo National Forest. Prescribed fire produces smoke emissions; however, it may reduce emissions in the long-term as wildfire size and intensity is reduced. A study in the western states found that large-scale prescribed fire could reduce carbon emissions in the western U.S. by about 20% (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). The amount of prescribed fire can be limited by the amount of burn days allowed by the California Air Resources Board and can be further regulated by individual air districts. The amount of burn days available varies year to year depending on weather patterns. See Table 4 for a summary of prescribed fire on the Inyo National Forest. Table 4 only includes information for the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District because no prescribed burns have been completed by the Inyo National Forest in the Central Valley Air District in the past decade. The only portion of the Forest within the San Joaquin District that is not in the wilderness is the few square miles within the Reds Meadow area.

Table 4. Number of prescribed fire projects conducted by the Inyo National Forest by year and acreage totals. Data was obtained from the Great Basin Unified APCD.

Prescribed Fire Summary for the Inyo National Forest Year Acreage Proportion of year for which Total* prescribed burning was allowed for the Great Basin Valleys Air Basin+ 2012 497 - 2011 64 77% 2010 1,266 91% 2009 2,684 85% 2008 2,053 78% 2007 2,000 89% 2006 - 87% 2005 - 86% 2004 3,250 82% 2003 5,450 70% 2002 951 70% *Data was obtained from the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District. + Data obtained from the California Air Resource Board. A “-“ denotes that data is unavailable at this time.

Prescribed fire ignited within the jurisdiction of the GBUAPCD has had short-term impacts on air quality within the district. Personal correspondence with GBUAPCD stated “no recorded violations of California or federal ambient air quality standards from prescribed burns within the district.” However, “managed naturally-ignited fires from outside the jurisdiction of the GBUAPCD have caused a handful of days to be over standards at monitors in the district” (GBUAPCD 2013). Increased acreage of prescribed fire of the Inyo National Forest may increase smoke emissions but will not necessarily result in violations of air quality standards. Smoke management techniques used by fire managers can reduce the impacts of smoke (NWCG 2001). The public can also take steps to reduce their exposure to smoke of both wildland and prescribed fire (CDC 2013)

The relative effect of one project’s prescribed fire to PM10 in Inyo and Mono Counties and in the Sierra Region for 2002 is shown below in Table 5. It shows that each project contributes a relatively small percentage of PM10 for the region surrounding the Inyo National Forest.

Table 5. PM10 emissions predicted from one prescribed burn project (Casa Diablo) relative to total annual average emissions for Inyo and Mono Counties and the Sierra Nevada region for 2002 (Inyo, Mono and Sierra region data from California Environmental Protection Agency 2009.

Casa Diablo Emissions Rx Burn Inyo Mono Sierra PM Coarse (2.5-10 micrograms) Project County County Region POINT SOURCE (tons per year) 0 124 23 8345 AREA SOURCE (tons per year) 3.5 - 10.5 14263 5350 129838 MOBILE SOURCE (tons per year) 0 7 5 1732 NATURAL SOURCE (tons per year) 0 103 2656 12808 TOTAL ALL SOURCES (tons per year) 3.5 - 10.5 14497 8033 150728

The overall PM10 emissions from wildfires on the Inyo National Forest were estimated from 1981-1995 in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (US Forest Service 2001). It showed that PM10 emissions from wildfires on the Inyo National Forest ranged from 13 tons in 1986 to 3,530 tons in 1985, with an average for the time period of 625 tons per year. Smoke emissions for wildfires were likely underestimated, as much of the smoke that reaches the Inyo National Forest is not from fires on the Forest, but from other locations as far away as the San Bernardino or Tahoe National Forests or on non- Forest system lands throughout central and southern California.

Smoke from wildfires can have major impacts on local communities. While the number of days per year with hazardous smoke levels from wildfires in communities surrounding the Inyo National Forest is very low, on average, some years have days or weeks with unhealthy smoke conditions. For example, during summer 2013, the Aspen Fire created heavy smoke in the Mammoth and Bishop areas for a period of two weeks, with unhealthy smoke levels during much of that time. The Aspen Fire was not on the Inyo National Forest, but on the adjacent Sierra National Forest. The smoke affected the health of local citizens, and also affected tourism and the local economy. This, along with most wildfires that cause major smoke in the eastern Sierra, was not under the control of the Inyo National Forest. The Sierra National Forest attempted to fight the fire aggressively, but wind conditions and terrain precluded rapid containment.

Prescribed burn PM10 emissions on the Inyo National Forest are reported in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (US Forest Service 2001) for 1996 through 1998. Emissions range from 52-217 tons per year, with an average for the three years of 132 tons per year. Based on the limited data available, prescribed burning contributes less PM10 than wildfire on an annual basis. On a forestwide scale, prescribed burning contributes about 1/3 of the total PM10 from smoke. Prescribed burning contributes less than 1% of the total PM10 emitted from lands in Inyo and Mono Counties.

The Inyo National Forest does have control over its prescribed burning program, and follows the rules of the Air Districts to prevent unhealthy smoke conditions for local communities. Most prescribed burning

12 is understory burning to remove ground fuels that could lead to uncontrollable wildfires, or pile burning to remove slash created from timber removal operations. While pile burning is often considered the only practical way to remove activity generated slash, if biomass facilities were located closer to the area, or if biomass energy production or other use of slash became more economical, the Forest could reduce pile burning on the Forest and therefore reduce air emissions due to smoke. However, as stated previously, the PM10 from prescribed burning on the Inyo National Forest is a small percentage of overall PM10 emissions in Inyo and Mono Counties.

Woodstove Smoke and Cinders Woodstove smoke and cinder usage on lands adjacent to the Inyo National Forest impair air quality. In the past, the town of Mammoth Lakes has had high levels of PM10 during winter months caused by a combination of wood smoke and cinders used on icy roads (GBUAPCD 2013). In 1990, the town, in cooperation with GBUAPCD, developed an ordinance to control wood smoke and cinders to reduce PM10 levels. Levels have decrease since enactment of the ordinance; however, new development in this area may increase PM10 levels. The intensity and spatial distribution of woodstove smoke impacts from Mammoth Lakes on Inyo National Forest’s air quality cannot be determined at this time.

Dust

Owens Lake The Inyo National Forest is adjacent to the “largest single source of PM10 in the United States”, which is Owens Lake (GBUAPCD). In that case, the PM10 is from dust blowing from the lakebed that dried out entirely due to water diversions. Dust emissions from the Owens Lake have contributed to non- attainment of the federal PM10 standard on lands adjacent to the Inyo National Forest. While neither the lakebed nor the water diversions are under Forest management or control, the southern portion of the Inyo National Forest is within the Owens Lake PM10 planning area. The city of Los Angeles is required to implement dust controls on the Owens Lake bed to reduce emissions. The Final 2008 Owens

Valley PM10 Planning Area Demonstration of Attainment SIP requires the Inyo National Forest to adhere to District Rules 410 and 411 related to prescribed fire. The intensity and spatial distribution of dust impacts from Owens Lake on Inyo National Forest’s air quality cannot be quantified at this time.

Mono Lake Mono Lake is also a source of PM10, though not as large a source as Owens Lake. The water level in the lake has been lowered due to diversions, so the area of exposed lakebed is a source of PM10 during windy days. The Mono Lake Basin also violates the federal PM10 standard. The Mono Basin State Implementation Plan (SIP) was approved by the EPA in 1996. The SIP requires Mono Lake’s water level to be brought to 6,391 feet elevation to reduce the amount of lake bed exposed. The lake is currently at around 6,381 feet (Mono Basin Committee website - http://www.monolake.org/today/water) and PM10 levels at some sites have decreased since 1994 (when lake levels averaged 6,375 feet) (GBUAPCD 2010). The intensity and spatial distribution of dust impacts from Mono Lake on Inyo National Forest’s air cannot be quantified at this time. As for Owens Lake, the amount of windblown dust and PM10 produced from Mono Lake is not under the control of the Forest, but depends on water diversions by other water users.

Current Conditions: Ozone Ozone is a secondary pollutant, meaning that ozone itself is not directly emitted to the atmosphere. It is formed through chemical processes induced by sunlight exposure in the presence of other pollutants. The pollutants that form ozone are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). See Table 2 for the regulatory limits of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). Since sunlight exposure is needed for volatile organic compounds to interact with nitrogen oxides, ozone concentrations are generally higher in the summer months and in locations that receive a high number of annual sunny days. All of the Inyo National Forest is in non-attainment for State ozone standards, but only the portions of the Forest in Madera and Fresno Counties are in non-attainment with Federal ozone standards (see table 3).

Ozone precursors can be generated by forest activities. Potential ozone precursors generated by Inyo NF management activities include:

• Motor vehicle exhaust • Wildfires • Prescribed Fires • Chemical Solvents • Natural sources such as vegetation

For the Inyo National Forest, data shows that most high ozone levels are due to pollutants blowing over the Sierra Nevada from the West slope of the Sierra Nevada, particularly from the Central Valley and San Francisco Bay Area, or from wildfires (Bytnerowicz et al. 2013, Bytnerowicz et al. 2004, Cisneros et al. 2010).

Ozone Impacts on Forested Lands Research plots for ozone injury were established in the late 1970s to late 1980s and found ozone injury throughout the Sierra Nevada Bioregion (Bytnerowicz et al. 2003). No critical loads for ozone have been established. An index of ozone exposure was created to better understand how ozone impacts vegetation communities. This index of ecosystem exposure is known as the W126 metric. The index is a cumulative weighted sum of the daily 24 one-hour ozone concentrations from April through October (this timeframe is known as ‘seasonal exposure’). Higher concentrations are given greater weight when calculating the index, since these higher concentrations typically produce greater injury. Much of the Inyo National Forest is modeled as high vegetation exposure to ozone. See Figure 4 for a map displaying the modeled exposure of vegetation to ozone.

Figure 4. Map showing an ozone injury index (known as W126) modeled within the Inyo National Forest. This higher the index value, the higher the likelihood of high ozone concentrations and vegetation injury. This model was completed at a large scale, so does not take into account local topography and wind patterns.

Current Conditions: Ecosystem Critical Loads / Nitrogen Critical loads are defined as a concentration of air pollution or total deposition of pollutants above which specific negative effects may occur. Critical loads are based on ecosystem responses rather than regulatory guidelines (Pardo et al. 2011).

Measurement of Ecosystem Critical Loads Responses to air pollution are measured by a sensitive component of the ecosystem known as a ‘receptor.’ There are many types of receptors and some are more sensitive to changes in air quality than others. When critical loads are exceeded, ecosystems are damaged. The range of damage depends on the concentration and length of pollution exposure. Fenn et al. (2010) has developed nitrogen deposition critical loads for various California ecosystems. While ozone is well documented as causing damage to conifers within the Sierra Nevada Bioregion, ozone critical loads have not been established (Bytnerowicz et al. 2003).

Nitrogen Deposition Critical Loads for the Inyo National Forest A California Energy Commission report examined nitrogen deposition ecosystem impacts for a total of 48 different ecosystems in California. In addition, critical loads have been established for nitrogen deposition in California (Fenn et al. 2010). Both the study and the report link increased nitrogen deposition with negative ecosystem impacts such as increased invasive plant populations, altered lichen communities, and altered mountain lake chemistry with elevated nitrogen deposition rates in California (Fenn et al. 2010 and Weiss 2006).

Most of the Inyo National Forest has been modeled as not exceeding the critical loads for the ecosystem (Figure 5). Four watersheds in and west of Mammoth Lakes were modeled to be in exceedance,;this could be due to the presence of a more sensitive ecosystem or a modeling error. There have been no negative ecosystem impacts of the type that are associated with increased nitrogen deposition found within this area, so it is unlikely that the model is correct in determining that this area actually exceeds nitrogen critical loads. This assessment was based on critical loads established by Fenn et al. (2010). This assessment was conducted while “assum[ing] an aggressive role in protecting the air quality values of land areas under their jurisdiction [and] in cases of doubt the land manager should err on the side of protecting the air quality-related values for future generations” as outlined in Senate Report 95-127.

Current Conditions: Visibility The Forest Service is required by the Clean Air Act to monitor air quality in Class I wildernesses. Related to the Clean Air Act is the Regional Haze Rule of 1999. The goal of this law is to return haze levels to natural background conditions by the year 2064. The Forest Service, along with other agencies, monitors Class I wildernesses through the Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network. This monitoring network measures pollutant concentration as well as visibility, a measurement of how clearly distant objects can be seen. For an example of the difference between and high and low visibility day in the Ansel Adams Wilderness, see Figure 6. For more information about Class I wildernesses see the “Sensitive Air Quality Lands” section.

Figure 5. Map showing nitrogen critical load assessment within the Inyo National Forest. The lands surrounding the Central Valley are most affected by nitrogen deposition, with few area of concern on the Inyo National Forest.

Figure 6. A side by side comparison of a high visibility day versus a low visibility day in the Ansel Adams Wilderness. The concentration of air pollution on a given day can affect the clarity and distance seen. Images adopted from http://www.fsvisimages.com/.

The IMPROVE monitoring network collects the most continuous and large-scale air quality monitoring for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion. There are two active IMPROVE sites for Class I wildernesses within the Inyo National Forest. The Kaiser site (KAIS1) is designated for monitoring both the John Muir and Ansel Adams Wildernesses. See Figure 7 for results from the Kaiser IMPROVE site (KAIS1). The Hoover site (HOOV1) is designated for monitoring the Hoover Wilderness, and is located on Conway Summit. See Figure 8 for results from the Hoover IMPROVE site (HOOV1).

Figure 7. Monitoring results from the Kaiser IMPROVE site (KAIS1) in deciview measurement. Visibility has been increasing on average since start of monitoring. The lower the amount of deciviews reduced the better the visibility.

Figure 8. Monitoring results from the Hoover IMPROVE site (HOOV1) in deciview measurement. Visibility has been increasing on average since start of monitoring. The lower the amount of deciviews reduced the better the visibility.

In general, data from these two IMPROVE sites (KAIS1 and HOOV1) shows that air pollution has been decreasing in the Inyo National Forest (FED). These sites have been active since the early 2000s. According to visibility monitoring from the IMPROVE network, the overall trend in air pollution is decreasing since visibility is increasing. However, levels still exceed regulatory and healthy ecosystem limits in many locations. Influence of Resources, Budgets, and Risk Factors on Accomplishment of Plan Objectives.

The 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan (pg. 66) includes the following goal for air quality: National Forest System lands are managed to maintain air quality that complies with all applicable regulations. The conduct of Forest management activities is carried out in a manner consistent and compatible with the attainment of state and federal air quality objectives.

The Forest generally has little trouble meeting applicable air quality regulations. Most Forest management activities, excluding fire, have little to no effect on air quality, and any emissions from Forest management activities are too small to measure. Air quality regulations often drive when and where prescribed burning or pile burning can occur, which can slow implementation of the Forest’s fuels reduction management activities. However, because the Forest is required to and strives to meet air quality regulations during burning, the local air district has never recorded any air quality violations due to the Forest’s prescribed burning activities.

Because few Forest activities affect air quality at more than a very local scale, Forest budgets or staffing generally do not affect the Forest’s ability to meet air quality goals.

The main local risk factors for not meeting LRMP air quality objectives, wildfires and wind-blown dust, are almost entirely beyond the control of the Forest. The Forest does have some limited control over wildfires within its administrative boundaries, because it can choose to suppress fires in remote areas more aggressively if air quality is of concern during the fire, or can proactively implement fuels management activities on the Forest to reduce the size, intensity, and duration of future wildfires.

Both the Owens and Mono Lake beds are major sources of dust which can be blown onto the Forest during high winds, causing PM10 levels to exceed State and Federal standards. The Forest has no control over this dust.

Other risk factors are pollutants and smoke that originate far from the Forest, generally on the West side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in the Central Valley or San Francisco Bay Area. Because winds can carry air pollutants, such as ozone and PM10, over far distances, often the poor air quality days on and adjacent to the Forest are due to fires or high smog periods in areas tens or hundreds of miles away from the Forest.

Most of the air quality program is currently based in the Regional Office, and therefore air quality monitoring is dependent more on Regional staff, funding and priorities than local Inyo National Forest resources.

References Forest Service Air Resources Management, n.d."Air Quality Images for Ansel Adams Wilderness." Accessed on March 11, 2013 on the website http://www.fsvisimages.com/.

Bytnerowicz, A.; M. Fenn and J. Long, 2013. Air Quality. Chapter 8 in Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn- Davidson, Lenya, and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science Synthesis to support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Draft Final Report. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 504 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/.

Bytnerowicz , A., J D. Burley, R. Cisneros, H.K. Preisler, S. Schilling, D. Schweizer c, J. Ray, D. Dulen, C. Beck, B. Auble. 2013. Surface ozone at the Devils Postpile National Monument receptor site during low and high wildland fire years. Atmospheric Environment 65 (2013) 129-141.

Bytnerowicz, A., M. Arbaugh and P. Padgett. 2004. Evaluation of Ozone and HNO3 vapor distribution and ozone effects on conifer forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin and Eastern Sierra Nevada. California Air Resources Board. Contract No. 01-334.

Bytnerowicz, A. Arbaugh, M., & Alonso, R. 2003. Ozone air pollution in the Sierra Nevada distribution and effects on forests. Amsterdam, Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/book/9780080441931

CAA. Clean Air Act of 1970; 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401 et seq.

CARB. 2012a. California Air Basins. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/airbasins/airbasins.htm

CARB. 2012b. ARB’s Geographical Information System (GIS) Library. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/gislib/gislib.htm

CARB. 2012c. Air Quality Standards and Air Designations. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm

CARB. 2011. Smoke Management Program. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved December 5, 2012 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/smp/smp.htm.

CARB 2009. Air Pollution – Particulate Matter Brochure. Accessed on August 9, 2013 on the website http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/pm10.htm.

CARB. 2008. California Emissions Inventory Data. California Air Resources Board. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emsmain/emsmain.htm

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 1984. California surface wind climatology. Reprinted with minor revisions by the Modeling and Meteorology Branch Technical Support Division, Februrary 1994.

Center for Disease Control (CDC), 2012. "Health Threat From Wildfire Smoke." Fact Sheet. 28 Sept. 2012. Accessed on July 22, 2013 from the website http://www.bt.cdc.gov/disasters/wildfires/facts.asp.

EPA. 2012. Air Actions, California. Environmental Protection Agency, Pacific Southwest, Region 9. Retrieved December 5, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/region9/air/actions/ca.html#calwide

Cisneros, R., A. Bytnerowicz, D. Schweizer, S.R. Zhong, and D.H. Bennett. 2010. Ozone, nitric acid, and ammonia air pollution is unhealthy for people and ecosystems in the southern Sierra Nevada, California. Environmental Pollution. 158(10): 3261-3271.

Desert Research Institute. 2013. Prevailing wind directly based on hourly data from 1992-2002. Accessed on August 9, 2013 on the website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/htmlfiles/westwinddir.html.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 2011. ”Air Emission Sources." Accessed on July 22, 2013 on the website http://www.epa.gov/air/emissions/.

Federal Land Manager Environmental Database (FED). "Database Query Wizard." Colorado State University, Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA), n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2013.

GBUAPCD “Burning in Great Basin APCD.” E-mail to the author. July 8, 2013.

GBUAPCD 2010. Reasonable further progress report for the Mono Basin PM-10 State Implementation Plan. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, September 2010.

GBUAPCD 1995. Mono Basin Planning Area PM-10 State Implementation Plan. Final. Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, May 1995.

Hardy, C.D; R. D. Ottmar, J. P. Peterson, J. E. Core, and P. Seamon, 2001."Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition." NWCG.gov.. National Wildland Fire Coordinating Group (NWCG) Fire Use Working Team, 01 Dec. 2001. Accessed on July 26, 2013 on the website .

Inyo National Forest 2010.

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, 2010. Nevada Air Quality Trend Report 2000-2010.

Pardo, Linda H., M. J. Robin-Abbott, and Charles T. Driscoll. 2011. Assessment of Nitrogen Deposition Effects and Empirical Critical Loads of Nitrogen for Ecoregions of the United States. General Technical Report NRS-80. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station.

U.S. Senate. 1997. Senate Report No. 95-127, 95th Congress, 1st Session.

Wiedinmyer, C. and Hurteau, M.D., 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing forest carbon emissions in the western United States environmental science and technology 44 1926-1932. California Environmental Protection Agency, Air Resources Board, 2009. California Regional Haze Plan (CRHP). Accessed on August 08, 2013 from http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/final/ rhplan_final.pdf

Weiss, S. B. 2006. Impacts of Nitrogen Deposition on California Ecosystems and Biodiversity. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research. CEC-500-2005-165.

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), 2013."Climate of California." Desert Research Institute. Accessed on July 26, 2013 on the website http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/narratives/california/.

Soil Resources

Introduction The Soil Resources section will assess the existing extent, location, and condition of soils across the Inyo National Forest. It includes a discussion of different types of soils and the variation in natural erosion hazard, productivity, and hydrologic function across the Forest. It also discusses the current condition of soils, focusing on erosion, compaction, and alteration to nutrients in soils.

Process and Methods

Scale of Assessment The scale of assessment for soil resources will be the Inyo National Forest (Inyo NF or Forest) boundary. This is because Forest management activities rarely affect soil condition on adjacent land. In those few cases where soil condition can affect adjacent land, for example, when erosion leads to landslides or gully erosion onto other lands, effects to adjacent lands will be discussed.

Information Sources Very little has changed with basic soil characteristics since the 1988 Land and Resource Management Plan was developed. However, soil conditions may have changed in local areas, and therefore soil conditions will be discussed in detail here.

The major information sources for soil characteristics within the Forest are the Forest Soil Surveys. Four different soil surveys cover the Forest. These are:

• Inyo National Forest West Area, California (USDA Forest Service, 1995) • East Part, Inyo National Forest Area, California (USDA Forest Service, 1994) • Sequoia National Forest, California (USDA Forest Service, undated) • High Sierra Area, California (USDA Forest Service, 1995)

These soil surveys include information about soil characteristics, including soil erosion hazard rating, soil productivity, and soil hydrologic classes, soil texture, among many other characteristics. Three are “Order 3” soil surveys, and the High Sierra survey is “Order 4”. That means that the High Sierra survey is at a larger scale. All were compiled using air photos in conjunction with field visits to collect soil information. A small portion of the Forest in the very southern end (less than 1% of the forest) is not included in a published soil survey, and therefore less information is known from those areas. However, general soil characteristics can be inferred from adjacent lands.

Known areas of erosion, soil displacement or compaction will be drawn from Inyo National Forest monitoring, Watershed Condition Assessment and existing NEPA

23 analysis completed by the Forest for recent projects. The Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management project (Inyo National Forest, 2009), recent grazing allotment Environmental Assessments, post-fire reports, pack stock Environmental Impact Statement, and various analysis documents for fuels treatment and recreational projects were used as information sources or for current condition information. Further, the assessment includes results of post-project monitoring completed by the Forest that has evaluated project design effectiveness in reducing negative soil effects.

The results of activity specific soil monitoring efforts were also used as information sources. The two main monitoring efforts are the monitoring of maintenance level 2 roads (i.e., high clearance four-wheel drive) as part of the California State OHV Division grant requirements, and 2012 fuels treatment related soil monitoring. Soil monitoring was completed during summer 2012 at seven recently treated sites and eleven sites planned for fuels treatments within the next few years. Fuels-related monitoring was completed using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (Napper et al. 2009).

Indicators The following indicators will be used to measure or assess current conditions for soil resources:

Table 6. Indicators of soil condition Characteristic or attribute Indicator Measure or Unit being measured or assessed Soil Soil stability/erosion Areas with high erosion hazard rating soils Soil stability/erosion Areas with high susceptibility to debris flows – and areas with recent debris flows Soil stability/erosion Management actions (and location) with known erosion issues Soil stability/erosion Cumulative watershed effect (Equivalent Roaded Area of each watershed) Compaction Area of soils with high compaction hazard Compaction Areas with known compaction Nutrient cycling/soil Soil Productivity – Grassland/Range carbon Soil Productivity - Timber Areas with known compaction issues Soil Hydrologic Function (reference compaction section)

Soil hydrologic group

Extent, General Locations and Types of Soil Resources

Soil Resource Description

General Soil Description Soil is the foundation of ecosystem function. It acts as a growth medium and provides

nutrients for vegetation, stores and filters water, cleans air, contains habitat for billions of organisms, and is a long-term carbon storage reservoir.

Soils can lose much of their function when altered. Alteration can occur through management actions as well as natural events. The greatest threat to soil productivity is soil erosion, because soil is lost from a site and cannot be replaced during human timespans. Erosion removes topsoil, which contains most of the soil’s nutrients. Soil can also be compacted, which reduces the soil’s porosity and air and water holding capacity. Soils can lose nutrients due to vegetation or litter cover removal, rendering it less capable of supporting some types of vegetation. Further, soil hydrologic function can be affected, through any of the above processes or when a water source is altered, such as when upstream diversions or stream incision in meadows actually reduce the amount of water entering the soil.

Soils on the Inyo National Forest vary greatly across the landscape, even at a local scale. However, there are general soil characteristics for large regions of the Forest that correspond with the Ecologic Unit Inventory (EUI) subsections. These subsections are shown in Chapter 1 of this assessment. Soils vary by elevation and latitude, due to temperature and precipitation differences, and also vary based on the type and age of parent material.

While most of the Sierra Nevada Range, which makes up the western portion of the Forest (Glaciated Batholith and Eastern Slope subregions), is underlain by granitic rock, it also contains areas of pre-batholith rock composed of metasedimentary and metavolcanic rocks. Further, there are inclusions of volcanic parent material throughout the Sierra Nevada. Soils over a large portion of the Forest (including the Mono Valley, Bodie Hills-Excelsior Mountains, Glass Mountains, and Crowley Flowlands subregions) have predominantly volcanic parent material. The White and Inyo Mountains are composed of many layers of different sedimentary and metamorphic rocks, with resulting variable soils. These soils include those derived from alkaline dolomite that support little vegetation but do support Bristlecone Pine stands that contain the oldest living trees on earth. The Kern Plateau subregion also has mostly granitic parent material with scattered pre-batholith parent material and volcanics, but soils differ from more northern portions of the Sierra because this area was not glaciated in the recent glaciations.

Most of the Forest has soils with low clay and nutrient content. This is due to many soils being weakly developed due to a dry climate or their being young soils. Therefore, soil nutrients and organic matter, which give the soil its productivity, are often concentrated only in the upper soil horizon, known as the “A” horizon.

The above soil characteristics mean that when the usually shallow “A” horizon is lost due to management actions (such as timber harvest or grazing), other human uses (such as recreational uses or construction), or natural events (such as a high severity fire and subsequent erosion), soil productivity is greatly reduced. While this is generally true for all soils, it is especially evident in many soils within the Forest, due to the low levels of

organic matter, clay, and generally thin “A” horizons (often only a few inches).

There are many areas that are exceptions to the above generalizations. Soils in meadows, fens, riparian areas, and soils in wetter areas can be very well developed, with very thick layers of organic material and high productivity. These are the most productive soils on the Forest. Water is usually the limiting factor for productivity on the Forest, and where there is constantly available water, such as in meadows, fens or riparian areas, soils are much more productive with higher clay content and organic matter. The overall meadow area on the Forest is relatively small, covering about 0.8% of the Forest area.

Sensitive Soils and Properties 1. Meadows and fens

Meadow and fen soils are sensitive for various reasons. They are groundwater dependent ecosystems, where vegetation depends on shallow water during the growing season (Boulton 2005). Any disruption in groundwater levels can affect meadow or fen function.

Fen soils are unique because they have peat soils that contain high amounts of organic matter. They are defined as having at least 40 cm of organic horizons in the top 80 m of soil (Soil Survey Staff 2006 and 1999). Fens are relatively rare in the Sierra Nevada, and take thousands of years to develop. They can support rare species and are a major sink for atmospheric carbon (Weixelman and Cooper 2009). They are also susceptible to damage because anything that disrupts hydrologic conditions can slow or stop peat development, which can result in gradual fen loss. Cooper et al. (2005) found that when as little as 15% of the soil surface is bare of vegetation, it can result in a loss of peat at fens. Because the soils are so wet and organic, they are easily sheared by trampling such as people or livestock walking on them. Fens on the Forest are generally found at higher elevations, associated with lakes or meadows (Cooper et al. 2005). The largest fen known on the Forest is in Round Valley Meadow, on the Kern Plateau near the Cottonwood Lakes Trailhead. Fen ecosystems are described more thoroughly in Chapter 1 of this assessment.

Meadow soils are not as organic-rich or wet as fen soils, but they still have more organic matter and are wetter than most soils on the Forest. They also have a higher clay and fine matter contact due to the higher levels of organic matter. This makes meadow susceptible to compaction. Further, in their natural range of variability, moist and wet meadow soils have thick root mats that prevent erosion (Ratliff 1985, Wood 1975, Hagberg 1995). It is assumed that many meadows in the Sierra Nevada did not contain streams pre-settlement, but runoff moved over them as overland flow (Hagberg 1995). Others contained streams with high bank stability due to thick roots and rhizomatous vegetation. When the meadow surface is disturbed and vegetation is removed, it can cause overland flow to channel along linear features such as stock trails, or can remove vegetation and make stream banks more susceptible to erosion. Over time, these conditions can lead to stream incision and lowering of meadows’ water tables (Micheli and Kirchner 2002). This fundamentally

affects meadow soils because their hydrologic function is altered and they become drier.

According to the Inyo National Forest’s meadow GIS layer, meadows cover about 18,200 acres of the Forest. While meadows make up about 0.8% of the Forest, they are most common in the Kern Plateau region. There, they make up about 10% of the land area, as compared to 1.5% in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses.

2. Shallow soils

Shallow soils are defined as soils less than 20 inches deep (Soil Survey Division Staff 1993). They are sensitive because they are susceptible to erosion and detrimental effects from management actions. They are generally weakly developed, with relatively little organic matter, and therefore have low nutrient levels. Any soil displacement or loss can greatly affect their productivity because there is little nutrient-rich soil left when even a small amount is removed. Further, when soil is shallow, runoff can infiltrate to the bedrock layer and run along that layer, carrying the overlying shallow soil with it. Shallow soils are found throughout the Forest, on a majority of sites. They are most common in steeper areas, high elevation areas, and areas of recent geologic deposition, such as volcanic deposits.

While we do not have spatial data for depth of all Forest soils, we have coverage for most of the Forest. Figure 9 shows the extent of shallow soils over most of the Forest. It shows that shallow soils are most common, predictably, in rocky areas of the Forest, and almost the entire White and Inyo Mountains.

3. High erosion hazard soils

High erosion hazard soils are soils that are more susceptible to erosion, especially when disturbed. Naturally, almost all soils experience erosion, and sometimes high rates of erosion. Human uses have the potential to increase soil erosion, which can result in loss of topsoil and subsequent loss of soil nutrients, carbon storage, and productivity. High erosion hazard soils are defined by a combination of soil texture, slope, permeability, vegetative cover, and climate. Generally, soils on the Forest have a higher erosion hazard rating when they are on steeper ground, have finer texture, less vegetative cover, and more intense rainfall (USDA Forest Service 1995).

These soils are sensitive because management activities, such as road building, timber harvest, or grazing, can more easily lead to accelerated erosion. High erosion hazard soils are found throughout the Forest, particularly in steep areas and on the Kern Plateau. The soil erosion hazard ratings for most of the Forest are shown in Figure 10.

Figure 9 Shallow soils on the Inyo National Forest. Shallow soils are defined as soils less than 20 inches deep. In the soil surveys, the data available was “effective rooting depth”, which in this region, is usually equivalent to soil depth. Many soil units have variable soil depths, which could not be captured on this map. Each unit was assigned only one rating; “Shallow” if at least some portion of the unit had soils less than 20 inches deep, and “Not Shallow” if no portion of the unit had soils less than 20 inches deep.

Figure 10 Erosion Hazard Ratings for the Inyo National Forest. These are the maximum erosion hazard ratings for each soil unit, and therefore are somewhat overestimated. Most soil units have variable erosion hazard ratings, but we only display one rating per unit. We chose to display the highest erosion hazard rating per unit. Areas with no data are areas where spatial data about erosion hazard rating was not available. The data does exist in a non-spatial format in soil surveys.

Current Condition of Soil Resources

Soil Stability and Erosion Soil erosion is the most harmful type of soil damage, because soil is actually lost from a site. Once the soil is gone, it is not renewable within human time frames. Most soil nutrients, particularly in a semi-arid climate such as most of the Forest, are in the top few inches of the soil. Therefore, loss of the soil surface greatly reduces nutrient levels and productivity of soil. (Moghaddas, 2013).

General Condition Forest wide There are relatively few areas on the Forest with widespread accelerated erosion beyond the natural range of variability. Erosion rates far outside of the natural range of variability have been observed mainly along roads, developed areas (such as ski areas), in streams in areas of concentrated grazing, and after wildfires of moderate or high intensity. Many erosion issues can be addressed through mitigations or restoration activities, or through project design with the installation of appropriate drainage and erosion control techniques.

The Inyo National Forest is mostly undeveloped, with low road density and few management activities in most areas. The areas that do have the highest road density and a history of more intensive management activities such as multiple timber harvests, are mostly located with the Jeffrey Pine Forest in the Crowley Flowlands subsection and adjacent areas. Those areas are also some of the flattest portions of the Forest and therefore little erosion hazard. Particular stressors that have led to increased soil erosion and the locations of that accelerated erosion is discussed below.

One way to look at watershed-wide potential for soil erosion is to complete a cumulative watershed effects analysis, using the Equivalent Roaded Area Method. As part of the analysis for the Motorized Travel Management Project (Inyo National Forest 2009), the Forest calculated the “cumulative watershed effects” for all 12th field watersheds on the Forest (watersheds generally between 10,000 and 40,000 acres). This is calculated as the “Equivalent Roaded Area”, or the percent of the area that is compacted to be basically impervious, like a road. This rapid calculation estimated that no watershed, even the most developed, had over 6% equivalent roaded area. The highest ERA is in the Mammoth Creek watershed, mainly because it contains the Town of Mammoth Lakes. The threshold of concern for watersheds on the Forest is between 14% and 20%. Therefore, no watersheds are considered to be near their threshold of concern for cumulative watershed effects from compacted soil.

Stressors

Fire – changes in fire regime

Wildfire causes increased erosion in soils, particularly those on steep slopes. Rainsplash, sheetwash and rilling are the most common and widespread causes of post-fire erosion (Moody and Martin 2001; Pietraszek 2006). On the Inyo National Forest, as well as other steep mountainous areas of Southern California, debris flows and dry ravel also commonly occur (Krammes 1960; Gabet 2003;Wohlgemuth 2003). Higher severity fires cause greater erosion, and not only lead to soil loss, but also to increased stream or reservoir sedimentation, and sometimes life or property-threatening debris flows (Forrest and Harding 1994; Neary et al . 2005). Fires cause erosion through vegetation removal, inducing hydrophobicity, and removing some organic matter in the top layers of soil, making them looser and more erodible (McNabb and Swanson 1990, Reinhardt et al. 1991).

On the Inyo National Forest, fires are often observed to cause increased erosion, both from water and wind, and to a lesser extent, from dry ravel. Increased water erosion has not been noted in flat areas that burn, but those areas have often been observed to have greater wind erosion post-fire. Notable wind erosion was observed after the Sawmill Fire near Benton, where devegetated sandy soils were blown into small sand dunes and filled in an intermittent stream bed. After most fires in the southern end of the Forest, on the east slope of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, high winds during spring cause wind erosion, creating local dust clouds and dirtying snow near the burned area up to two years after a fire.

Wildfires and soil erosion are natural processes that are part of the natural range of variability of the Forest. However, fire suppression and climate change mean that fires have the potential to be larger and more severe that under the natural range of variability. For more information on current conditions and predicted trends for fire, see Chapter 3. These larger, more severe fires have the potential to cause more widespread erosion than under the natural range of variability.

Debris flows are common on the southern end of the Inyo National Forest, as well as in the White Mountains. The results of these can be seen on topographic maps that show an alluvial fan emanating from the mouth of almost every canyon in these areas. Two major debris flows occurred on the Forest within the past five years, both of which were in watersheds that had recently burned, and both of which caused property damage. One occurred in Oak Creek, near Independence, in 2008, and one occurred in Haiwee Creek, south of Lone Pine, in 2010.

Research in the western United States shows that most post-fire debris flows are initiated by runoff and erosion on hillslopes, but grow in size through erosion and scour in channels (Santi et al. 2007). Therefore, while there is minor rilling and high runoff from the upland slopes, the majority of the erosion occurs in the stream channels. Most

commonly, post-fire debris flows occur within two years after a fire (USGS 2005) and can be triggered during storm events with return periods of two years or less (Cannon et al. 2008). The Oak Creek debris flow occurred one year after the Inyo Complex Fire and the Haiwee debris flows occurred two years after the Clover Fire. About 40% of the Oak Creek watershed had been burned at moderate to high severity, and about 20% of the Haiwee Creek watershed had burned at moderate to high severity. Both experienced intense, short-duration rainfall due to summer thunderstorms that triggered the debris flows (Wagner et al, 2012, Clover Fire BAER report 2008).

These two recent debris flows illustrate that when a steep drainage on the Forest is burned at a moderate or high severity, even if it is as little as 20% of the watershed, there is a risk of debris flow with intense summer rainfall. We can assume that this is a possibility in any steep watershed on the Forest. We assume that post-fire debris flows are most likely from about Tom’s Place south on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Debris flows are naturally relatively common on the west front of the White and Inyo Mountains, even without fire. If a fire did occur in any of those watersheds, it would likely increase the likelihood of a debris flow.

Prescribed fire has not been shown to increase erosion in most studies, due to low fire severity that often leaves soil structure and organic matter intact (Moghaddas 2013). Monitoring on the Inyo National Forest has the same results. Of 24 Best Management Practice evaluations completed after prescribed fire on the Forest, none have ever noted post-fire erosion (Forest Service BMPEP database).

Fuel management/logging The effects of intense timber harvest (e.g., clearcutting) on soil erosion has been extensively studied (e.g. Berg and Azuma 2010, Litschert and MacDonald 2009, McColl and Powers 1984). When intense harvest occurs on flat slopes, there is usually little erosion, and when it occurs on steep slopes, erosion results. Erosion is usually limited to skid trails or roads, even on steeper slopes (Poff, 1996). This has been found to also be the case on the Inyo National Forest. Timber harvest with ground based equipment no longer occurs on slopes greater than 35% on public lands.

The Forest has not conducted clearcuts or other intense logging practices in recent decades, instead completing thinning projects where smaller diameter trees are removed to reduce fuel continuity. However, thinning does use ground-based equipment, skid trails, and other traditional logging practices. Much of the smaller vegetation is removed, though large trees remain. Due to the highly permeable soils and generally low to moderate intensity of cross-country equipment travel, there are very few areas on the Forest where fuels management has led to erosion. There are a few known localized instances where erosion occurred after fuels treatment in the past 20 years. All were on short (less than 200 feet) sections of skid trails or roads that were approaching 20-30% slope, and where appropriate drainage was not installed before winter. If these steeper skid trails do not have drainage installed before rainfall, erosion can occur. However, in most cases, the Forest does install drainage, preventing erosion on these skid trails, and

32 in the past decade, there has been much more attention to installing Best Management Practices and preventing this type of erosion. Soil monitoring was completed during summer 2012 at six sites that were thinned using mechanical equipment or had public fuelwood gathering in 2011. Monitoring was completed using the Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (FSDMP) (Napper et al. 2009). One additional site with prescribed burning was monitored. Results showed that of the seven sites monitored, two had minor erosion at a few points, but there was no widespread erosion.

From the early 20th century to the 1990s, much more intense logging occurred on the Forest, particularly in the primary timber production area between Mammoth Lakes and the Glass Mountains. For more information about past and current vegetation management on the Forest, see Chapter 8 – Timber. Although legacy effects from that past logging can be found on the Forest, such as compaction and effects to soil structure, there is no evidence of any widespread erosion off of roads in the core timber management area of the Forest. Most of this area is relatively flat, with highly permeable soils with a low to moderate erosion hazard rating (Figure 10). Therefore, although erosion can occur on steeper skid trails without implementation of Best Management Practices, this rarely occurs on this Forest and there are very few, isolated areas where vegetation management has led to soil erosion.

Roads and urban/suburban development, developed sites (ski areas, campgrounds, resorts, recreation residences, etc.) Roads and developed areas are the most widespread severe contributor to soil erosion in the Sierra Nevada’s forested settings (Coe 2006, McDonald et al. 2004, Stafford 2011). Roads contribute an order of magnitude more sediment than any other type of disturbance except high severity wildfire, which produce similar sediment yields (McDonald et al. 2004). Developed areas, such as ski runs, parking lots, or resorts, while not studied as extensively as roads, are considered here to have the same effects as roads because they have extensive compacted, almost impervious surface. Surface erosion is a greater concern on routes with slope gradients greater than 15%, and in ashy/pumice soils.

On the Inyo National Forest, roads and other developed sites are some of the few areas where major erosion occurs, outside of post-fire debris flows. Road erosion tends to occur either on the road or off road as rills or gullies. Unlike some other forests in the Sierra Nevada, landslides, where soil fails along a concave rupture, do not usually occur here. While debris flows do occur, as stated in the “fire” section above, they are associated with erosion of stream channels during intense runoff, not to erosion from uplands or roads. Therefore, roads are not associated with landslides on this forest.

Unpaved road erosion is common across the Forest, although severe erosion from roads only occurs in a few locations. The Forest has monitored road condition of about 50% of the maintenance level 2 roads (most of the native surface roads on the Forest) as part of the State OHV grant monitoring. Road condition includes drainage and erosion. Monitoring found that about 65% are in good condition, 21% are in moderate condition,

and 10% are in poor condition. Chapter 11- Infrastructure of this assessment includes more information about road condition. Studies have shown that road erosion can be greatly reduced through gravelling the road to cover at least 30% of the bare soil and installing properly-sized and designed drainage features (Coe 2006, Stafford 2011).

Trails have similar effects as roads, but on a smaller scale. While forestwide data about trail erosion are not available, data were collected on non-motorized trail condition in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses between 2000 and 2004. Trails were rated in terms of “alteration to soil or hydrologic processes”. In almost all cases, alteration was due to erosion. Of the 236 trails analyzed, 43% are causing little or no alteration to soil or hydrologic processes. Another 31% are causing minor alteration, 17% are causing moderate alteration, and 8% are causing major alteration of soil or hydrologic processes. This information cannot be extrapolated to other portions of the Forest due to differences in morphology, soil types, precipitation patterns, and other differences, but it shows that about ¾ of the trails in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses have no to minor erosion and the other ¼ have moderate to major erosion. For trails, erosion is usually due to lack of drainage on trails and incision of the trail.

Ski runs and roads at ski areas are another source of soil erosion. While erosion in these areas is often moderate to severe rilling and gullying and extensive within the ski area, erosion is generally limited to within the ski area boundary. Both Mammoth and June Mountain Ski Areas have extensive ski run drainage systems and revegetation programs to reduce erosion. However, ski runs and associated roads remain areas of high erosion due to their configuration, which is steep and usually parallel to the slope. Further, at Mammoth Mountain, much of the soils are poorly developed pumice soils or simply pumice gravel with little to no soil development. This pumice floats on water, and has almost no cohesion, and therefore easily flows downhill during snowmelt runoff or intense rain.

Other areas, such as resorts, campgrounds, recreation residences, and other facilities, have associated erosion in some cases, though it is usually limited to local areas immediately surrounding the facility or its native surface parking lots or other bare soil areas.

The Forest Service has Regional and National Best Management Practices (BMPs) meant to prevent erosion and protect water quality. When implemented, these practices are generally effective at reducing erosion. However, while they are usually implemented with new projects or maintenance of existing sites, they often were not installed on older roads or at older facilities. More information about BMPs and their effectiveness is contained in the Water section of this chapter. The Forest has an active restoration program that installs erosion control measures on roads and motorized and non- motorized trails throughout the Forest. These activities usually include improving drainage to prevent erosion, re-grading roads or trails, or moving roads and trails out of steep or otherwise erosive areas. While these activities are limited by funding and staff, there is some road and trail improvement completed in almost all years on the Forest, and they have been effective at reducing soil erosion. For more information about road

and trail condition and maintenance, see Chapter 11 – Infrastructure.

Grazing The Forest contains grazing allotments for cattle and sheep, and also supports grazing by pack stock (horses and mules) in Wilderness areas as well as in pastures outside of Wilderness. Grazed areas are present across the Forest, in uplands as well as meadow ecosystems. Grazing can cause erosion through breaking the sod layer that holds soil together, through trampling, by removing revegetation that helps bind soil together, or by causing compaction that reduces infiltration and increases overland runoff, leading to erosion. Grazing effects vary greatly by grazing intensity and length of grazing season, with increasing use causing increased soil erosion effects (Blackburn 1984, Allen-Diaz et al. 1999). There are currently many fewer animals grazing on the Forest than there were 50 or even 20 years ago. See the Range section of Chapter 8 for more information on grazing use.

Similar to study results across the Western United States, long-term, concentrated grazing does cause erosion on the Forest. However, in most areas outside of streambanks, many of these effects are minor, and some appear to be remnants from past, more intense grazing. The evidence for this is that even when areas are closed to grazing, or rested from grazing for a decade, vegetation alteration, hummocking, and compacted soils often remain in areas that received concentrated use. There are some local areas, particularly along stock trails, in steeper areas, and in areas of concentrated use such as wallows, where surface erosion continues. However, active erosion in widespread areas, such as rill or sheet erosion, is rarely seen in grazed areas on the Forest.

Stream channels do continue to erode across the Forest in grazed areas, particularly in meadows, though most areas show improvement in the past 10-20 years. This erosion is sometimes severe gully erosion. Streambank erosion in grazed areas will be discussed further in the ‘Water’ section of this chapter.

The 1988 Forest Plan was amended in 1995 by the Amendment 6 protocol, developed to measure effects from grazing. Amendment 6 has been completed in many grazing allotments to monitor condition of meadows and uplands. Monitoring was completed on cattle and sheep allotments from 2006-2011 as part of environmental analyses for the reissuance of several grazing permits. Monitoring is qualitative, based on defined site characteristics, and rates condition as a category ranging from functional to non- functional. For uplands, or dry sites, measures of erosion are soil movement, surface litter and/or rock cover, pedastaling, flow patterns, rills/gullies/headcuts, and bare ground due to disturbance. Table 7 below shows results from monitoring at 73 different upland sites on grazing allotments.

Table 7 The percent of upland sites in condition categories for erosion-related soil function on grazing allotments, using the Amendment 6 protocol. This monitoring all occurred from 2006 through 2011 as part of grazing allotment environmental analysis, at a total of 73 sites. Non- Measure functional Degraded At-risk Functional Soil movement 0% 5% 41% 53% Surface litter and/or rocks 0% 4% 47% 49% Pedastaling 0% 5% 27% 67% Flow patterns 0% 3% 3% 95% Rills, gullies and headcuts 0% 1% 1% 97% Bare ground due to disturbance 3% 11% 38% 48%

Table 7 shows that most sites had either no erosion (functional) or only minor (at-risk) erosional features. The sites found to be degraded or non-functional all require some sort of management change to improve their condition. See the Chapter 8- Range section of this assessment for more information on the Amendment 6 protocol and grazing management. When grazing is found to cause a degraded or non-functional soil condition, actions are taken to reduce that erosion. In some cases, allowable utilization is reduced, or in some cases, measures such as moving cattle more often, or fencing off sensitive areas, can increase vegetative growth and reduce erosion.

Similar monitoring was completed in wet sites, including moist and wet meadows, with slightly different erosion-related characteristics. Results are shown in Table 8.

Table 8 The percent of meadow sites in condition categories for erosion-related soil function on grazing allotments, using the Amendment 6 protocol. This monitoring all occurred from 2006 through 2011 as part of grazing allotment environmental analysis, at a total of 75 sites. Non- Measure functional Degraded At-risk Functional Rills/gullies 0% 1% 32% 67% Bare Ground 1% 7% 35% 57% Headcuts and Nickpoints 7% 16% 27% 49%

Table 8 shows that most monitored meadow sites also have either no erosion or minor erosion, though 23% of meadows have either degraded or non-functional headcuts and nickpoint condition.

As part of the analysis of pack stock use in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses (AA/JM Wildernesses; Inyo and Sierra National Forests 2005), information was collected about grazing effects in high elevation meadows grazed by pack stock. Amendment 6 was not used, but a similar protocol was developed. Erosion itself was not measured, but one measure that can be used as a proxy for erosion is “sod impacts”. Sod impacts were anything such as sod fragmentation, or breaking of the surface layer

of sod to expose bare soil, to bare soil, to eroding soil. Therefore, sod impacts are an indicator of current or potential erosion. Of the 214 meadows that were rated for sod impacts, 23% had no impacts observed, 45% had slight impacts, 25% had moderate impacts, and 7% had severe impacts to the soil surface. This indicates that most meadows grazed by pack stock in the AA/JM Wildernesses have some soil disturbance.

Grazing can also lead to streambank erosion, but that will be discussed in the “Water” section of this chapter, because it relates to stream function.

Soil Strength (Compaction, Structure and Macroporosity)

General Soil Strength Condition Forestwide Soil compaction has detrimental effects because it alters the structure of the soil. It reduces pore space, which is important for holding water and air and allowing plant roots to easily penetrate the soil. It can reduce infiltration of rainfall or snowmelt, causing more to runoff the surface, which can lead to soil drying, erosion, loss of aeration, and increased peak runoff in streams.

All types of soils can be compacted, but generally, finer textured soils are more easily compactable, especially when wet or moist. Further, ashy, pumice soils can be easily compacted because they contain glass shards, which are easily crushed (Litton 2006). On the Forest, weakly developed soils with decomposed granite parent material tend to be less easily compacted than ashy, pumice soils. The few clay-rich soils on the Forest tend to be in meadows, where the main uses are recreation and grazing, and many meadows show some compaction or in areas of hydrothermal alteration, such as around the Little Hot Creek area and Mammoth Meadows.

Compaction is common in high use areas of the Forest, such as roads, campgrounds, and stock gathering areas such as pastures, but in general, is uncommon outside of these concentrated use areas. The following will describe some of the stressors that lead to compaction, and where that compaction occurs across the Forest.

Stressors

Fuel management/logging/fire There has been extensive study of the effects of fuel management and traditional logging on compaction (Moghaddas 2013). Compaction occurs when heavy equipment travels over soil, particularly moist soil, because the soil strength is not high enough to resist being crushed.

Moderate or severe soil compaction is generally limited to skid trails, where machines make multiple passes during operations. Most compaction occurs in the first few passes (Williamson and Nielson 2000). On the Forest, practices to prevent compaction are built into every project. These practices include designating skid trails, working only when soil is dry in the top few inches, minimizing the area travelled by equipment, and, when

necessary, decompacting skid trails.

Little quantitative monitoring of compaction has been completed after recent fuels management on the Forest. However, shovel tests and observations have shown few major compaction effects occur outside of skid trails or roads in recent operations. Soil monitoring in summer 2012 showed that all units that had thinning the previous year showed some compaction, and all except two units that had not been treated recently had some compaction. Most of those units had been more intensively logged in the 1980s or 1990s, and impacts are assumed to be legacy impacts. The units that were recently thinned also likely have legacy impacts, so it is difficult to determine if compaction is due to recent or past logging activities.

These results indicate that there are areas with legacy compaction, even when a site has not been logged or treated in 20-30 years. More recent fuels management activities show minor compaction (outside of skid trails), possibly not enough to cause detrimental effects to soil water holding capacity, runoff, or vegetation growth.

Most of the areas monitored were in the primary timber production portion of the Forest, in the Jeffrey Pine forest. However, fuels management activities occur in many areas today, for the purpose of protecting homes and communities.

Wildfire and prescribed fire do not have compaction effects on soils.

Roads and urban/suburban development, developed sites Compaction occurs on roads and in developed facilities such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and resorts. These areas are expected to have compaction and as long as their density is not great enough to cause cumulative watershed effects, this compaction generally only affects the road or developed site itself. These areas are not dedicated to growing vegetation, so unless it leads to increased erosion, compaction in these areas is not considered detrimental. However, expansion of compacted areas to new areas surrounding recreation sites, beyond the necessary or existing extent, is considered detrimental and is addressed through restoration activities as funding and priorities allow.

Some sites on the Forest, particularly higher use dispersed recreation sites where there is extensive camping, have had a trend in recent years of increased areas of bare soil and compaction. Some examples of these areas are the Buttermilk climbing area, the Clark Canyon climbing area, and camping areas along Deadman Creek. The 2009 Travel Management project addressed the creation of user-created roads, but no forestwide effort has been completed to address the creation of user-created campsites. Because these sites are not designated, and these areas appear to be receiving more use in the past decade, parking areas, campsites and trails are becoming more numerous and larger. In some areas, such as the Deadman Creek dispersed camping area, and the Deadman Creek developed campground, compaction is severe and extensive enough to kill some trees. Barricading and other delineation of sites has helped decrease compacted area and prevent further expansion. Although some work has been done in

the Deadman Creek area to inventory campsites and place boundaries on some of the larger sites near water, the same effort has not been completed at dispersed recreation sites across the Forest. While these areas are small on a watershed scale, the area surrounding the site has enough compaction and bare soil to have long-term negative effects to soil productivity over many acres.

As with logging, measures to prevent compaction are built into every new Forest project or in maintenance of existing roads or developed sites. These measures limit compaction to the extent necessary to meet the project’s needs. Further, when the Forest identifies compacted areas that are larger than necessary to meet the developed or dispersed site needs, the excess areas are often barricaded to prevent access, or signed to educate the public about compaction effects and the need to remain in delineated parking areas.

Grazing Grazing can cause compaction when many heavy animals concentrate in one area, particularly when soil is moist. Research has shown that continuous heavy and moderate grazing causes soil compaction, but that light grazing, or rest rotation grazing systems often do not (Spaeth et al. 1996). This is generally borne out on the Forest, with severe compaction noted in meadows or other concentrated use areas (such as troughs or sheep bedding grounds), but not outside of those areas of concentrated use. Compaction from grazing tends to be shallow (less than 6 inches), and can show significant recovery within a decade (Tate et al. 2004, Spaeth et al. 1996), though depth to compaction and recovery has not been well documented on the Forest.

Areas grazed by cattle and pack stock (horses and mules) have shown similar soil effects from grazing on the Forest. Cattle and pack stock can cause compaction and hummocking in moist or wet soil areas, and streambank trampling and erosion when they access water or riparian vegetation. They also can concentrate in some areas, such as in the shade or in a wallow, where they can remove most vegetation, leading to bare soil and heavy compaction. Sheep grazing allotments generally show different soil effects, due to the different size of the animals and the different way they are managed. On the Inyo National Forest, sheep graze almost exclusively in upland areas, and are often excluded from grazing in wetter areas such as meadows. They drink out of troughs filled with water trucks or piped in from other water sources, and are moved almost every day by a shepherd, so spend little time in one location.

The only locations we have found in sheep grazing allotments with any observable compaction are bedding grounds, where the sheep bed down for the night. These are scattered throughout sheep grazing allotments. In recent years, we have not detected compaction or erosion in areas outside of sheet bedding grounds, though there is some soil disturbance and less vegetation in areas that are used frequently.

Amendment 6 monitoring was completed at 75 meadow sites and 73 upland sites on cattle and sheep allotments between 2006 and 2011. Compaction was measured qualitatively, and meadow sites were also analyzed for hummocks, which are sometimes a result of compaction in wet areas.

Table 9 shows compaction results at meadow sites. It shows that about half of all grazed meadows have minor, moderate or major compaction.

Table 9 Percent of meadow sites in each condition category for compaction-related soil function on grazing allotments, using the Amendment 6 protocol. This monitoring all occurred from 2006 through 2011 as part of grazing allotment environmental analysis, at a total of 75 sites. Non- Measure functional Degraded At-risk Functional Hummocks 3% 14% 35% 49% Compaction 1% 11% 39% 49%

In upland sites, 56% had no observed compaction, 32% had minor compaction (at-risk), and 12% had moderate compaction to lead to a degraded rating. None of the sites were rated as non-functional for compaction.

In monitoring conducted as part of the 2005 decision related to pack stock use in the Ansel Adams and John Muir pack stock (Inyo and Sierra National Forests 2005), 105 meadows had quantitative compaction measurement, using examination of soil structure in soil pits. Of these meadows, most (65%) did not have any observed compaction, 18% were found to have minor compaction, 13% moderate compaction, and 4% severe compaction. All monitored sites were in meadows.

The monitoring completed on the Forest suggests that in open rangelands area on the Inyo National Forest, compaction occurs in about half of grazed areas, though slightly more in meadows than uplands. Meadows grazed in all or most years over the entire season tend to show the highest severity compaction.

Soils compaction in cattle allotments on the Kern Plateau and some lower elevation pastures is affected by more than just grazing. Many of these meadows were tilled with machinery in the mid-20th century, and were seeded and irrigated to improve forage. Impacts to these soils, whether it be erosion or compaction, could be a result of that intense manipulation and not current conditions. It is impossible to separate the cause and effect in these instances.

Effective rangeland management has been shown to minimize compaction in grazed areas. These measures include altering on-dates to avoid heavy grazing on moist soils that are easily compactible, fencing off areas that are constantly wet to avoid compaction, rotating cattle use into different portions of allotments in subsequent years, or moving cattle more frequently within an allotment. Other options are installing a trough or salting to encourage cattle to stay out of wet and easily compactible areas.

Nutrient Cycling, Organic Matter, and Soil Carbon

General Nutrient Condition Forestwide As explained above, soils on the Inyo National Forest generally naturally have low nutrient and organic matter levels relative to soils on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada. Severe wildfire can remove soil nutrients, and erosion can carry away the topsoil, and therefore most of the soil nutrients. Other Forest activities, such as grazing, can add nutrients to the soil, as can nitrogen deposited from air pollution. These nutrient adding factors are not widespread on the Forest, but will be discussed below.

Soil productivity, both as defined for rangelands and timber lands, is an indicator of soil nutrients and soil organic matter. That data is included in soil surveys, but does not exist in a spatial database and cannot be displayed or summarized at this time.

Stressors

Fuels management and fire It is widely reported that severe wildfire removes nutrients from soils. However, few studies have been completed pre- and post-fire to quantify these effects (Moghaddas, Busse and Long 2013). Those few studies show that with severe wildfires, much of the soil carbon and nitrogen can be lost from the soil, reducing their nutrient availability and productivity. However, lower severity fire, such as prescribed burns, have not been shown to significantly affect soil carbon and nitrogen in the soil, though they do remove 70-80% of the litter cover of the soil, which stores nutrients (Moghaddas, Busse and Long 2013).

Pile burning, which is the most common method the Forest uses to dispose of logging/thinning related slash, has been found to affect soil nutrients and productivity, though studies have not been completed on the Inyo National Forest. Korb et al. (2004) found that pile burning in a thinning area on the Coconino National Forest in Arizona increased soil pH (i.e., made the soil less acidic), reduced soil nitrogen and carbon, and almost eliminated the native seeds and beneficial mycorrhizal fungal structures within the burn scar. It also increased invasive species colonization. They found that planting native seeds and adding soil amendments helped reduce some of these negative effects. Johnson et al. (2011) studied effects of burn piles to soil and water nutrients in the eastern Sierra of Nevada, and found that soil water nutrient levels were greatly increased under burn piles, but runoff only had excessive nutrient levels when burn piles were placed in meadows. Busse et al. (2013) found that soil heating lethal to seeds and vegetation was greatly reduced if piles did not contain large boles and when piles were quenched with water after 8 hours. Frandsen and Ryan (1986) found, in a Canadian study, that pile burning while soil is wet and duff covered could reduce soil temperatures by 500°C. On the Inyo National Forest, burning is usually done in winter, during snow cover, or in early spring. These are the periods of greatest soil moisture.

We could not find studies on the Inyo National Forest about effects to soil nutrients from wildfire or prescribed burns. However, multiple studies have been completed in the Sagehen Experimental Forest, which is located on the Tahoe National Forest, and has similar characteristics to the Jeffrey Pine primary timber production area on the Forest. Results show that fuels treatments and prescribed burning do not significantly affect soil nutrients immediately. Whole tree logging, or burning of slash, greatly reduces overall ecosystem carbon and nitrogen, leaving less available for future input into the soil (Moghaddas, Busse and Long 2013, Johnson et al. 2008). Unless there is soil surface erosion, fuels treatments do not directly affect soil nutrients.

Though data on the Forest is lacking, in general, severe wildfires remove far more nutrients from the soil than low or moderate severity wildfires and prescribed burns. Therefore, activities that are designed to limit high severity, large wildfires should help maintain soil nutrients.

Roads and urban/suburban development, developed sites As discussed above in the “Erosion” section, developed sites and roads usually have complete removal of the top layer of soil, which is where almost all of the soil nutrients are stored. Further, developed sites usually have much less litter on the ground, due to removal of vegetation and people removing woody material to burn. Although again no studies have been completed on soil nutrient levels in developed areas of the Forest, it can be assumed that within their footprint, soil nutrient levels are greatly reduced. However, this is not an important area of study for this assessment because these sites are designated for purposes other than growing vegetation, and are small areas of reduced nutrient levels that likely do not affect overall soil productivity on a watershed or Forest-wide scale.

Grazing The effects of grazing on soil nutrient levels on the Inyo National Forest have not been studied. General expected effects can be inferred from studies on the west side of the Sierras and the Great Basin. Dahlgren et al. (1997) found that light to moderate grazing had no significant effect on soil nutrients in an oak woodland (of which the Inyo National Forest has very little). Blank et al. (2006) found that grazing in meadows in the western Sierra Nevada either increased or decreased soil nutrient levels, or had no effect, depending on the location within the meadow and how much time cows spent there. Neff et al. (2005) found that even after 30 years without grazing, areas in Utah that had been grazed for almost 100 years had 60-70% less organic carbon and nitrogen in surface soils, and attributed the loss to wind erosion. The study area had cryptobiotic crusts in areas that had never been grazed, suggesting that removal of these crusts leads to wind erosion and nutrient loss. The Inyo National Forest has some grazed areas with cryptobiotic crusts, observed mainly on the desert allotments in the southern portion of the Forest, and also some in the high elevation wlderness areas grazed mainly by pack stock. These crusts are also a major nitrogen –fixer in semi-arid ecosystems, so their removal or disruption can reduce nitrogen input into soils (Fleishner 1994). The current

42 or past extent of these crusts on the Forest is unknown.

Though few publications report effects of grazing on soil nutrients, the above referenced studies suggest that if grazing causes erosion, it will lead to soil nutrient loss, but, barring erosion, the effects on nutrient levels are not easily predictable.

As part of its Amendment 6 monitoring, the Forest assessed changes in the surface organic layer of soils in grazing allotments. In meadows, results showed that in 56% of the 75 sites evaluated, there was no observed alteration to surface organic layer thickness, 28% of sites showed minor alteration, and the remaining 16% had moderate alteration. In upland, dry sites, 36% of the sites showed no alteration, 52% of the sites showed minor alteration of the surface layer, and 12% showed moderate alteration. Dry sites often have a very thin organic layer, sometimes less than an inch, so it is easily disturbed. Although this is not a direct measure of soil nutrients, we assume that when a portion of the surface organic layer has been lost, some soil nutrients are removed.

Atmospheric deposition Atmospheric deposition of nitrogen can increase nitrogen levels in soils, and sometimes has been shown to have a fertilizing effect in nitrogen limited systems (See Air section of this chapter). However, most of the Inyo National Forest has been modeled as having little nitrogen input. The northwest portion has at least one watershed exceeding nitrogen critical loads, but this could be due to more sensitive ecosystem or modeling error. This assessment was based on critical loads established by Fenn et al. (2010).

Hydrologic Function

General Soil Hydrologic Function Condition Forestwide Soil hydrologic function refers to the ability of soil to absorb and hold water (Forest Service Manual - Soil Management Manual, regional supplement R5 FSM 2550, 2012-1). Soils on the Forest generally have high permeability, which means large volumes of precipitation and runoff can be absorbed into the soil. This also means that they do not hold much water, as water drains out of them quickly.

The natural range of variability of soil hydrologic function is given as the hydrologic group in the Forest soil survey. Soils in hydrologic group A have low runoff potential, with high rates of infiltration. Soils in hydrologic group D have high runoff potential with very slow rates of infiltration. Hydrologic groups B and C are intermediate. Figure 11 shows the soil hydrologic group of all soils on the Forest. This shows that most soils on the major timber producing area of the Forest have very low runoff potential, while those in step, rocky areas have high runoff potential.

Soil hydrologic function group is important for management purposes because watersheds containing a large portion of soils with high runoff potential are more likely to have flooding with heavy rainfall or snowmelt. Further, soil disturbing activities on these soils, such as fuels management, need to have more carefully planned drainage

systems because more frequent and more intense surface runoff is likely.

Soil hydrologic function is closely related to compaction. When soils are compacted, they cannot absorb and hold water as easily as when they are not compacted. Because hydrologic function is closely related to compaction, see the compaction section above for the general condition of Forest soil hydrologic function.

Sensitive Soil - Hydrologic Function Considerations Meadow soils are particularly susceptible to changes in soil hydrologic function, for two reasons. One, soil in meadows is more easily compacted than most other Forest soils. This can reduce the ability of meadows to absorb water and can cause increased runoff and erosion. Further, meadows often have stream incision. While this does not necessarily change the soil structure, it does often lower the groundwater table in a meadow. This reduces the amount of soil moisture in the surface of the soil, and can alter the ability of the soil to support meadow vegetation. It can result in meadow drying and changing to a shrub ecosystem. Meadow incision is discussed more thoroughly in the “Water” section of this chapter.

Figure 11 Soil hydrologic groups on the Inyo National Forest. Areas shown as gray had no available spatial data.

Trends Affecting Soil Resources Trends affecting soil resources are expected to be mainly related to climate change. First, climate change, along with decades of fire suppression, is expected to lead to larger, more severe wildfires though the effect may not be as pronounced as on other Forests in the Sierra Nevada. (See Chapter 3 for a discussion on expected trends for fire.) Second, climate change may lead to drier streams during summer months, and warming could affect vegetation density. It is difficult to predict how these factors will affect soil resources, but we will include some possible scenarios below.

Soil Stability and Erosion It is unknown how climate change will affect soil erosion. Because severe wildfire leads to high erosion rates, from hillslopes and stream channels, it is assumed that if climate change leads to more severe and large wildfires, the Forest as a whole will have greater erosion rates.

The effects of climate change in unburned areas is less clear. Reibe et al. (2001) found that climate had no effect on hillslope erosion rates in the Sierra Nevada mountains, in soils with granitic parent material. In a review of existing studies on the topic, Nearing et al. (2004) found that increased rainfall intensity often predicted with climate change is likely to increase erosion. However, the studies they reviewed were mainly on crop lands. Increased rainfall intensity would likely lead to greater erosion on the Forest, because runoff and erosion tend to occur when soil is saturated or when rainfall intensity is so great that it cannot infiltrate.

Streambank erosion may also increase. If streams tend to dry out earlier in the summer, or formerly perennial streams become intermittent, it is likely that there will be less riparian vegetation over time. This could lead to increased streambank erosion, especially if longer droughts are interspersed with more severe flooding, as is predicted in most climate change scenarios (Miller et al. 2003, Kattelmann 2000).

The Forest and its partners are also actively implementing restoration actions to reduce erosion on roads, trails, dispersed camping areas, grazed areas, and other developed and dispersed recreation sites. These efforts are expected to continue, further reducing erosion issues on the Forest.

Soil Strength and Compaction It is unlikely that there will be any noticeable trend in soil compaction. Although there is predicted to be an increase in recreational visitor use over the next 20 years (see Chapter 9), it is not expected that much of this use will be in new areas that lead to increased soil compaction.

However, in some dispersed recreation areas, such as the Buttermilk climbing area, other climbing areas, and concentrated dispersed camping areas such as along Deadman and Glass Creeks, the trend in recent years has been toward increased use. Because these

46 areas are not strictly managed, people have created more campsites, expanded parking areas, increased area of compacted, bare soil. Under existing management, this dispersal will likely continue and lead to more and more bare, compacted soil that can have a locally important effect, though it will still likely remain small on a watershed scale. An inventory of dispersed campsites in the Deadman and Glass Creek area and their impacts was completed in 2012 by the Inyo National Forest watershed staff (Prentice 2012). It found that many campsites and their access routes were compacted and causing erosion and sometimes runoff into surface water. Few other inventories have been completed and information about the extent and impacts of dispersed camping across the Forest would be helpful for managing these areas.

Nutrient Cycling, Organic Matter, and Carbon Potential climate change effects to nutrient cycling and organic matter in soils has not been well studied outside of agricultural systems. If climate change leads to increased temperatures and reduced precipitation, as is predicted for this Forest, there will likely be less dense vegetation in most areas, particularly those at lower elevations on the Forest, and therefore less nutrient input into soils. However, warming at higher elevations could lead to increased vegetative growth, increasing nutrient inputs into soils.

Soil carbon storage has been well studied, but expected effects from climate change are still poorly understood, due to complicated soil interactions (Davidson and Janssens 2006). A discussion of carbon and the effects of climate change on carbon storage is included in more detail in Chapter 4, though soil carbon storage is not analyzed in detail. In summary, climate change could affect soil carbon stores and nutrient cycling, but the effects could vary across ecosystems and elevation. There are conflicting conclusions about whether climate change will lead to increased or decreased soil carbon storage (Davidson and Janssens 2006).

If the Forest does experience more large, high severity wildfires with climate change, it will likely reduce soil nutrient levels and carbon storage in the burned area.

Hydrologic Function Soil hydrologic function is closely related to compaction, and major changes to compaction are not expected in the future. However, soil hydrologic function is also related to how much water is stored in the soil. If there is less rain across the Forest, soils will be drier. If there is less snowfall, or it melts earlier, soils at higher elevations will likely be drier earlier in the summer season.

Influence of Resources, Budgets, and Risk Factors on Accomplishment of Plan Objectives The 1988 Inyo National Forest LRMP (pg. 69) includes the following direction for soil resources as part of the Watershed goal: “National Forest management activities are

conducted to maintain or improve soil productivity.”

Generally, the Forest is able to meet this goal. While Forest Service funding is often limited, there has been a recent focus on implementing erosion control activities, which help maintain or improve soil productivity. Further, many outside funding sources are available to support Forest projects to address erosion and resulting water quality effects. In the past decade, the Forest has received grants from many outside funding sources, including the California State Department of Parks and Recreation Off- Highway Vehicle Grants, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Sierra Nevada Conservancy, Army Corps of Engineers, and Kern River Trust, either wholly or partially to implement management or restoration actions that reduce soil erosion. Through the implementation of the 2009 Motorized Travel Management EIS and ROD, the Forest has emphasized repairing roads to reduce erosion on and adjacent to road surfaces.

Other resources, such as grazing, recreational uses, and fuels management, often increase soil erosion over natural levels, and subsequently reduce productivity. However, the Forest implements Best Management Practices to minimize soil erosion or reductions in productivity associated with these other uses and activities.

Risk factors that affect soil resources are natural occurrences such as flooding and wildfires. These are beyond the control of the Forest, although the Forest can choose how aggressively to fight a wildfire that occurs in a remote area, and can implement fuel treatment activities to help reduce the size and intensity of future wildfires. Wildfires, particularly moderate to high severity fires, generally increase soil erosion and decrease productivity. Lower severity fires such as prescribed fires, have little effect to soil nutrients. Flooding can lead to major, rapid erosion, particularly near stream channels.

References

Allen-Diaz, B., R. Barrett, W. Frost, L. Huntsinger, K. Tate. 1999. Sierra Nevada Ecosystems in the Presence of Livestock. A report to the Pacific Southwest Station and Region, USDA Forest Service.

Berg, N.H.; Azuma, D.L. 2010. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, fuel reduction treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19, 478-489.

Blackburn, W.H. 1984. Impacts of grazing intensity and specialized grazing systems on watershed characteristics and responses. p. 927-933. In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. Natural Resources Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, Colorado.

Blank, R.R., T. Svejcar, G. Riegel 2006. Soil attributes in a Sierra Nevada riparian meadow as infuened by grazing. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 59(3): 321-329. Boulton AJ (2005) Chances and challenges in the conservation of groundwater and their dependent ecosystems. Aquatic Conservation: Marsh Freshwater Ecosystems 15:319–323.

Busse, M.D, C.J. Shestak and K.R. Hubbert. 2013. Soil heating during burning of forest slash piles and wood piles. International Journal of Wildland Fire. Volume 22(6) pp. 786-796.

Cannon, S.H., 2001, Debris-flow generation from recently burned watersheds: Environmental & Engineering Geosciences, Vol. VII, No. 4, pp 321-341.

Cannon S.H., and Gartner, J.E., Wilson, R.C., Bowers, J.C., and Laber, J.L., 2008, Storm rainfall conditions for floods and debris flows from recently burned areas in southwestern Colorado and Southern California: Geomorphology, Vol. 96, pp. 250-269.

Coe, D.B. 2006. Sediment production and delivery from forest roads in the Sierra Nevada, California. Masters Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Cooper, D.J.,R. A. Chimner, and E.C. Wolf. 2005b. Livestock use and the sustainability of southern Sierra Nevada Fens. Report prepared for the Inyo National Forest, USDA Forest Service, Region 5, California. 18pp.

Davidson, E.A and I.A. Janssens. 2006. Temperature sensitivity of soil carbon decomposition and feedbacks to climate change. Nature 440, 165-173 (9 March 2006).

Gabet, E.J., 2003. Sediment transport by dry ravel. Journal of GeophysicalResearch 108(B1), 2049. doi:10.1029/2001JB001686

Fleischner, T. L, 1994. Ecological costs of grazing in Western North America. Conservation Biology Vol. 8, No. 3.

Frandsen, W.H. and K.C. Ryan. 1986. Soil moisture reduces belowground heat flux and soil temperatures under a burning fuel pile. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Vol 16(2): 244-248.

Inyo National Forest, 2009. Final Environmental Impact Statement: Inyo National Forest Motorized Travel Management. Volumes 1 and 2. R5-MB-198. August 2009. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Forrest CL, Harding MV (1994) Erosion and sediment control: preventing additional disasters after the southern California fires. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 49(6), 535–541

Hagberg, T.D. 1995. Relationships between hydrology, vegetation and gullies in montane meadows of the Sierra Nevada. Thesis. Humboldt State University.

Inyo and Sierra National Forests, 2005. Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volumes 1 and 2. R5-MB-099.

Johnson, B. G., D. W. Johnson, W. W. Miller, E. M. Carroll-Moore, and D. I. Board. 2011. The effects of slash pile burning on soil and water macronutrients. Soil Science, v. 176, no. 8, p. 413- 425.

Johnson, D.W.; Murphy, J.D.; Walker, R.F.; Miller, W.W.; Glass, D.W.; Todd, D.E. 2008. The combined effects of thinning and prescribed fire on carbon and nutrient budgets in a Jeffrey pine forest. Annals of Forest Science 65, 601p1-601p12.

Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash pile burning effects on soil biotic and chemical properties and plant establishment: Recommendations for amelioration. Restoration Ecology Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 52-62.

Krammes JL (1960) Erosion from mountain side slopes after fire in southern California. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and RangeExperiment Station, Research Note 171. (Berkeley, CA)

Litschert, S.E.; MacDonald, L.H. 2009. Frequency and characteristics of sediment delivery pathways from forest harvest units to streams. Forest Ecology and Management 259, 143-150.

Litton, Sabrina. 2006. Physical characterists of forest soils after timber harvest and tillage in CentralOregon: A case study. A professional paper submitted to the Department of Forest Engineering, Oregon State University.

McColl, J. G., and R. F. Powers. 1984. Consequences of forest management on soil-tree relationships. In Nutrition of plantation forests, edited by G. D. Bowen and E. K. S. Nambiar, 379–412. New York: Academic Press. McDonald, P. M., and G. O.

McDaniel, P.A. and M.A. Wilson, 2007. Physical and chemical characteristics of ash-influences soils of inland northwest forests. In Volcanic-Ash-Derived Forest Soils of the Inland Northwest: Properties and Implications for Management and Restoration. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 9-10 November, 2005, Coeur d’Alene, ID. Proceedings RMRS-P-44.

MacDonald LH, Coe D, Litschert S. 2004. Assessing cumulative watershed effects in the Central Sierra Nevada: Hillslope measurements and catchment-scale modeling. In Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium: Science for Management and Conservation. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-193: 149-157.

McNabb, David H. and Swanson, Frederick J. 1990. Chapter 14. Effects of fire on soil erosion. In: Natural and prescribed fire in Pacific Northwest forests. Walstad, John D., ed., et al. Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, pp. 159- 176.

Megahan, 1974. Erosion over time: A model. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-156, Ogden, UT, USA. 14 pp.

Miller, N.L., K.E. Bashford and E. Strem. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39: 771-784.

Moghaddas E,. 2013. Soils. Chapter 5.0 in Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn-Davidson, Lenya, and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science Synthesis to support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Draft Final Report. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 504 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/.

Moody JA, Martin DA (2001) Hydrologic and sedimentation response of two burned watersheds in Colorado. US Geological Survey, Water Resources Investigative Report 01–4122. (Denver, CO)

Moody JA, Martin DA (2009) Synthesis of sediment yields after wildland fire in different rainfall regimes in the western United States. International Journal of Wildland Fire 18, 96–115. doi:10.1071/WF07162

Nearing, M.A., FF. Pruski and M.R. O’Neal, 2004. Expected climate change impacts on soil erosion rates: A review. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 43-50.

Neary DG, Ryan KC, DeBano LF (2005) Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. USDAForest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, General Technical Report 42, vol. 4. (Ogden, UT)

Neff, J.C., R.L. Reynolds, J. Belnap and P. Lamothe. Multi-decadal impacts of grazing on soil physical and biogeochemical properties in Southeast Utah. Ecological applications, 15(1), 2005, pp. 87-95.

Page-Dumroese, D, A.M Abbott and T.M. Rice, 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol, Volumes I and II. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, GTR-WO- 82.

Pietraszek, J. (2006) Controls on post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. MSc thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Poff, R.J. 2006. Effects of Silvicultural Practices and Wildfire on Productivity of Forest Soils. Ch. 16 in Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress, vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for management options. Davis: University of California, Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, 1996.

Prentice, S. 2013. Impact Assessment of Deadman Creek and Glass Creek Dispersed Campsites: Inyo National Forest Watershed Group. Evaluated August 2012

Ratliff, R.D. 1985. Meadows in the Sierra Nevada of California: state of knowledge. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-84. USDA, Forest Serv., Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Berkeley, CA.

Reinhardt, E.D., J.K. Brown, W.C. Fischer, and R.T. Graham. 1991. Woody fuel and duff consumption by prescribed fire in northern Idaho mixed conifer logging slash. Research Paper INT443. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 22 p

Santi, P.M., deWolfe, V.G., Higgins, J.D.,Cannon, S.H., and Gartner, J.E., 2007, Sources of debris flow material in burned areas: Geomorphology, vol. 96, p. 310-321.

Soil Survey Staff. 2006. Keys to soil taxonomy, Tenth Edition. 331 pp. [Place of Publication Not Stated]: USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/tax_keys/keys.pdf.

Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, Second Edition. Agriculture Handbook No. 436, 871 pp. http://soils.usda.gov/technical/classification/taxonomy/.

Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18.

Spaeth, K. E, T.L. Thurow, W.H. Blackburn, and F.B. Pierson. 1996. Ecological dynamics and management effects on rangeland hydrologoc processes. In:F. B.

Pierson M. A. Weltz K.E. Spaeth, and R.G. Hendricks (eds) Grazing land hydrology issues: perspectives for the 21st century.Denver, CO: Society for Range Management.

Stafford, A. 2011. Sediment production and delivery from hillslopes and forest roads in the Southern Sierra Nevada, California. Masters Thesis. Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado.

Tate, K.W., D.M. Dudley, N.K. McDougald and M.R. George 2004. Effect of canopy and grazing on soil bulk density. Rangeland Ecology and Management, 57 (4): 411-417.

USDA Forest Service 1995. Soil Survey: Inyo National Forest West Area California. Pacific Southwest Region. June 1995.

USDA Forest Service, 1995. Soil Survey: High Sierra Area California. Pacific Southwest Region. October 1995.

USDA Forest Service, 1994. Soil Survey: East Part, Inyo National Forest Area California. Pacific Southwest Region. September 1994.

USGS, 2005, Southern California – Wildfires and Debris Flows: USGS Fact Sheet 2005-3106, 4p.

Wagner, D.L, J.T. Lancaster and M.B. DeRose. 2012. The Oak Creek Post Fire Debris and Hyperconcentrated Flows of July 12, 2008, Inyo County, California: A Geologic Investigation. California Geological Survey. Special Report 225. Version 1.0.

Weixelman, Dave A, Cooper David J. 2009. Assessing Proper Functioning Condition for Fen Areas in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Ranges in California, A User Guide. Gen. Tech. Rep. R5-TP-028. Vallejo, CA. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 42 p.

Williamson, J.R.; Neilsen, W.A. 2000. The influence of forest site on rate and extent of soil compaction and profile disturbance of skid trails during ground-based harvesting. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30, 1196-1205.

Wohlgemuth PM (2003) Hillslope erosion following the Williams Fire on the San Dimas Experimental Forest, Southern California. In ‘Proceedings Second International Wildland Fire Ecology and Fire Management Congress and Fifth Symposium of Fire and Forest Meteorology’, 16–20 November 2003, Orlando, FL. 1B.8. (American Meteorological Society: Boston, MA) Available at http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/67248. pdf [Verified 2 April 2013]

Wood, S.H. 1975 Holocene Stratigraphy and Chronology of Mountain Meadows, Sierra Nevada, California/USDA Region 5. Earth Resources Monograph 4. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, CA.

Water Resources and Quality

Introduction This section focuses on water resources and water quality, including surface and groundwater. It includes topics such as water yield, effects to water quality and quantity from stressors, and expected changes in water quality and quantity from climate change. Water uses, including those by humans and ecosystems, are discussed in Chapter 8. They will only be discussed here in terms of their effects to watershed processes, flows and water quality.

Process and Methods

Scale of Assessment The assessment will be conducted for those watershed s located within or partially within the Inyo National Forest’s (Inyo NF or Forest) administrative boundary. The portion of the watershed on the Forest will be assessed in more detail than portions outside the Forest boundary.

Depending on the resource, different watershed scales will be used. Watershed condition and water quality will be discussed at the 12th field watershed scale, which are watersheds ranging from about 10,000 to 40,000 acres. These are the smallest watersheds that are currently delineated, and therefore are the finest scale practical at which to look at effects. Watershed condition and water quality can vary meaningfully at this scale.

Water quantity (stream flow) will be discussed at the 8th field watershed scale (8th field watershed is the same as the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 4 watersheds), or an aggregate of 8th field watersheds where more practical. These are watersheds ranging from 400,000 to 1,000,000 acres, on the scale of the Mono Lake or the Owens River watersheds. This is the meaningful scale for water quantity, or flows, because diversions affect flow in all downstream waters, to its terminus. If a watershed is too large, such as an entire river basin, flow alterations become less meaningful, so any larger assessment scale would be less meaningful. Figure 12 shows 8th and 12th field watersheds on the Forest.

Data Sources For general climate and hydrology, we obtained information from many publications, especially Chapter 3 of the 2011 Inyo-Mono Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (Drew et al. 2011). This document contains a detailed description of the Mono Lake and Owens River watersheds, summarizing data from many previous studies and reports.

For overall watershed condition, the Inyo National Forest Watershed Condition Framework provides an existing assessment. The Framework provides watershed condition assessments for all 6th-field subwatersheds with at least 5% Inyo National Forest ownership, and was completed in 2010. The assessment is based on a National Forest Service protocol with 12 indicators and 24 attributes related primarily to aquatic habitat quality (http://www.fs.fed.us/publications/watershed/).

Figure 12 Map showing the 8th field and 12 field watersheds on the Inyo National Forest. The 8th field watersheds are those referred to as ‘major watersheds’ in this topic paper.

Meadow condition relative to groundwater levels and physical features will be discussed in this chapter. Information used to understand meadow physical and hydrologic condition was found

55 in multiple sources. The Inyo National Forest regularly completes meadow assessments, mainly for grazing effects analysis, using the Forest’s Amendment 6 and the nationwide multi-agency Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocol. This information includes analysis of stream condition and incision. Amendment 6 and PFC assessments have been completed across much of the Forest where grazing occurs. The Forest also completed an analysis of 230 meadows in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness as part of the Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management (Inyo National Forest, 2005. This analysis included qualitative analysis of meadow incision and hydrologic function that we will use here.

Surface water quality information was obtained from multiple sources, as the Forest does not have a long-term forest-wide surface water quality monitoring program. However, there have been short-term or local, project specific monitoring from which we will obtain data. This includes fecal coliform monitoring on grazing allotments from 2011 and 2012, multiple parameter monitoring in surface water downstream from Mammoth Mountain Ski Area (sampled by the ski area).and data from California State programs including the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP http://swamp.mpsl.mlml.calstate.edu/online-data) and data collected to support the State Water Resources Control Board’s 303(d) list.

Data about surface water flows was obtained from historic stream gauge information published by the United States Geologic Survey online. In the Mono Lake and Owens River watershed, most of this monitoring has been completed by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP), which closely monitors water supply in these watersheds. Information about flow alterations was found in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licenses, as well as local research publications. Information on dam location was obtained from a GIS layer created by Stream Net, from data provided by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. (http://www.streamnet.org/gisdata/map_data_physical/Facility_SNDams_20100224.htm).

Groundwater information is limited for the Inyo National Forest, although there is extensive information available for lower elevation areas adjacent to the Forest, such as the Owens Valley. Mammoth Community Water District (MCWD) produces annual reports about groundwater pumping, water levels, and water quality in production and monitoring wells. Some of their monitoring wells are within the Forest. Wildermuth Environmental (2009) also produced a Mammoth Basin Groundwater Model report that contains groundwater condition analysis for areas on and adjacent to the Forest. The Forest also samples water quality in water systems at developed recreation sites, and those results can be used to assess ground water quality. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area also monitors water quality at one site on the Forest, and that data will also be used to look at groundwater quality. Spring (groundwater dependent ecosystem) locations are in various GIS databases managed by the Forest, and although these are not a complete inventory, this data will be used to show known spring locations and any known conditions.

Indicators Table 10 below shows the indicators that will be used to assess current conditions and trends for surface and groundwater resources. While other indicators would be useful for determining condition of water resources, the Forest chose indicators for which we have some existing

56 information. In some situations in which there is not enough baseline information available assess conditions using the following indicators, other attributes will be discussed in more general terms, along with some of the limitations that make identifying meaningful indicators difficult.

Table 10 Indicators used in the water section

Characteristic or attribute Indicator Measure or Unit being measured or assessed Watershed Condition Watershed condition Priority level from Watershed Condition Assessment

Watershed Condition Watershed Percent of meadows with incised channels morphology Water quality (surface) Fecal coliform Number and percent of measurement sites meeting fecal coliform standards. Water quantity (surface) Altered flows Length and distribution of perennial stream habitat with altered hydrograph (percent of perennial streams altered) Groundwater quality MTBE (gasoline), Number of sites known to NOT meet standards (for fecal coliform, toxics MTBE, fecal coliform, other toxics such as arsenic). Groundwater quantity Locations of Known spring locations groundwater exposure on surface Groundwater supply Groundwater Basins and known water levels/ drawdown issues

Extent, General Location, and Types of Water Resources

General Overview of Hydrologic Systems on the Forest The Inyo National Forest contains six different major watersheds, shown in Figure 12 and Table 11. Five are internally draining while one, the San Joaquin River, drains west into California’s Central Valley and the Bay/Delta. Table 11 shows the watershed names, the percent of the Forest in that watershed, and our estimated annual water production from the Forest portions of that watershed.

Table 11 uses different methods to estimate yield from each watershed, depending on available data and local knowledge. In the 1988 Forest Plan, the Forest used Rector and MacDonald’s (1986) estimate of 1,090,000 acre-feet per year, which is similar to the estimate of approximately 932,000 acre-feet per year used in this topic paper. The data used in the 1988 Forest Plan estimated the Kern River flow on the Forest was about 50,000 acre-feet per year less than the estimate used in this topic paper. Brown and Froemke (2009) estimated that the Inyo National Forest produces 534,600 acre-feet per year, based on precipitation and evapotranspiration. This seems to be an underestimate because the actual gauge data from the Owens and Mono watersheds that we used is alone greater than their estimate.

All of the watersheds’ hydrology is snowmelt-dominated, though the influence of snow

57 decreases southward and eastward. The highest precipitation on the Forest, about 59 inches (150 cm), is on the Sierra Crest between Mammoth Mountain and the McGee Creek headwaters. The lowest precipitation on the Forest is on the lower Forest boundary in the Owens Valley, where precipitation averages 5.9 inches (15 cm).

Table 11. Watersheds on the Inyo National Forest. The estimated annual water production is for the Forest portions of the watershed only.

Estimated Average Annual Percent of Water Production (Acre- River/Basin Name Forest Area Feet) Receiving Water Mono Basin 18% 122,3801 Mono Lake/LA Aqueduct and groundwater Owens River 50% 411,9801 Owens Lake/LA Aqueduct and groundwater Upper San Joaquin 4% 204,6502 San Joaquin River and River groundwater Upper Kern River 9% 144,6703 Kern River and groundwater Watersheds East 19% 45,5004 Fish Lake Valley Groundwater of White-Inyo Mountains Indian Wells- <1% 2,8005 LA Aqueduct/Searles Valley Searles Valley Groundwater Total Total Forest 931,980 Acres:

2,039,080

Methods used for each watershed: 1 Obtained from runoff measurements reported in LADWP 2011 – This is a very accurate measurement of the watershed’s runoff, due to extensive flow monitoring in the Owens and Mono watersheds. However, it includes runoff from the entire watershed, including areas not on Forest. However, the Forest contributes the vast majority of this runoff, as downstream areas are relatively dry. This is likely a slight overestimate, but we considered it more accurate than any other possible method. 2 We divided average annual streamflow at the nearest long-term gauge (converted to acre-feet per year), by the contributing drainage area within the Forest boundary, in acres. For this watershed, we used the San Joaquin River at Miller's Crossing gauge (#11226500), with a 47 year period of record ending in 1991. 3 We divided average annual streamflow at the nearest stream gauge (converted to acre-feet per year), by the contributing drainage area within the Forest boundary, in acres. For this watershed, we used the Kern River near Quaking Aspen Camp gauge (#11226500), with a 14 year period of record ending in 1974 for the Main Fork Kern River, and SF Kern River near Onyx, CA gauge (#11189500) with a 100 year period of record for the South Fork Kern River. A 14 year period of record is not considered adequate for an accurate calculation, but due to its proximity to the Forest boundary, we considered it more accurate than one much further downstream. 4 We consider this a very rough estimate based on one stream gauge on Chiatovich Creek (#10249900), with a 22 year record from 1961-1982. There are 7 perennial streams in this basin that flow off-Forest, so we multiplied Chiatovich Creek's average annual flow by 7. This is roughly comparable to results in Rush and Katzer (1973), where they estimated 32,000 AF/yr for 6 streams into Fish Lake Valley alone. The other method considered was to

use Chiatovich's average annual discharge and divide it by the watershed area, which equals a water yield of 0.27 AF/Acre/year. Then, multiply it by the entire East Side Whites watershed area. That method estimated about 105,000 Acre Feet of water production per year. We assumed this was a major overestimate because the watershed rapidly dries to the South, and the Southern half has no perennial or intermittent streams, with only a few perennial springs. 5 We consider this a very rough estimate. Based on using the Owens River calculated water yield of 0.20 AF/acre/yr, multiplied by this watershed area on the Forest. There are no gauges in this watershed on Forest.

The San Joaquin River watershed has the highest water yields per acre of the watersheds. The Indian Wells-Searles Valley and east side of the White-Inyo Mountains watersheds have the lowest. These estimated water yields are aligned with precipitation. The west flank of the Sierra Nevada Mountains is much wetter than the east side, due to rain shadow effects. Conversely, there is greater runoff on the east side of the White-Inyo Mountains than the west side, due to regional climate, wind patterns and topography.

Discussing flows in terms of “averages” can be misleading, because with the weather patterns and morphology of the Forest, flows can vary widely from year to year. For example, Owens River natural flows average around 412,000 acre-feet per year. However, in a very dry year, 1977, natural runoff was about 255,000 acre-feet, while in a very wet year, 1969, natural runoff was over 970,000 acre-feet. Therefore, the natural range of variability for runoff and supply for the Owens River can be close to 400%. In smaller tributaries, the variation between wet and dry years can be even larger, up to ten times greater (Alpert et al. 2012, Table 2-8).

The Mono Lake and Owens River watersheds receive most of their flow from streams originating in the Sierra Nevada. The White Mountains have very few streams on their west side, with only two streams, Silver Creek and Coldwater Canyon Creek, having perennial flow to the valley floor (Drew et al. 2011). While most of these streams are diverted upstream of the valley floor, they likely would have infiltrated into the alluvial fan before reaching any other water body even pre-diversion, due to the highly permeable alluvial fan soils and low average stream flows. The east side of the White Mountains has about seven perennial streams that extend beyond the Forest boundary, though they all infiltrate into their alluvial fan before reaching any other water body. The Inyo Mountains, in the southeastern portion of the Forest, have no persistent perennial streams on the east or west sides, but do have some perennial springs that create short perennial stream channels.

Almost all watersheds on the Forest are steep, with high elevation headwaters dropping up to 10,000 feet to the lower Forest boundary. The Kern River watershed is flatter than the others, partially due to lack of recent glaciation (perhaps the last 1 million years). Because of the steepness of the watersheds, streams tend to have narrow floodplains with narrow strips of riparian vegetation. In high elevation areas, meadows often form where stream floodplains widen. On the Kern Plateau, in the Kern River drainage, the flatter topography allows for wider floodplains and more common and larger meadows. While about 1.5% of the land area in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses is meadow, about 10% of the Kern Plateau contains meadows.

Melack and Lesack1982 and Ebasco Environmental, et al. 1993

Water Quality Summary

Some developed areas on the Forest are known to have water quality degradation, though these areas make up a small portion of the waters on the Forest.

Mono Lake has different water quality than other lakes on the Forest, because it is an ancient terminal lake with no outlet. It has very high salinity and mineral content, and is alkaline, with a pH near 10. This water chemistry is typical of terminal lakes, which are common in the Great Basin area of the western United States. However, water diversions have increased salinity beyond natural levels, as will be discussed in more detail below.

Stream Flows and Timing of Flows Summary Most surface water on the Forest is fed primarily by snowmelt. On average, surface runoff peaks in May during maximum snowmelt, and decreases through the fall, rising again in April when snow begins to melt. Although most annual peaks flows occur during May or June, the largest floods on record occur during winter, when warm winter storms cause rain on snow events. In many smaller tributary channels in drier portions of the Forest such as the White Mountains and the southern portion, the largest floods occur during intense summer thunderstorms. These thunderstorm-induced floods tend to be localized, due to intense local rainfall under a thunderstorm cell.

Many springs flow almost constantly throughout the year, though flows can vary from year-to- year. Therefore, some spring-fed channels do not have as much variation in flows as snowmelt- fed channels. Some streams, such as ephemeral streams in the arid portions of the Forest in the White and Inyo Mountains, may only have flow once every few years, or decade, and that flow is likely to be a flash flood due to intense thunderstorms.

There are a few glaciers and many permanent snow/ice fields remaining on the Inyo National Forest, though they have decreased in size over the past few decades (Basagic 2003). These permanent ice features supplies water to perennial streams, and keep them flowing throughout the summer season.

Groundwater Summary There are areas of the Forest that have shallow groundwater systems. However, since the mountainous portions of the Forest generally have shallow bedrock, groundwater systems in these areas are not considered high production aquifers. The bedrock often has cracks that contain groundwater, especially in volcanic rocks, and wells can successfully extract groundwater in some of these fractured bedrock areas. Other portions of the Forest, such as Long Valley, do have deep sediment and are considered to be groundwater basins. Groundwater basins in the region are shown in Figure 13. Water quality on the Inyo National Forest is generally good, due to low population and levels of development. Naturally flowing lakes and streams in the area generally have low nutrient, mineral and sediment levels. Arsenic naturally occurs in some surface water at low levels. Arsenic and uranium have been found to occur at levels of concern in some groundwater in the Owens River and Mono Lake watersheds (Drew et al. 2011). Geothermal springs have been found to have naturally high levels of some constituents, such as phosphorous, heavy metals and arsenic

The Inyo National Forest contains geothermal waters, sometimes in deep aquifers and sometimes meeting the surface at hot springs. These geothermal waters are found mainly in the Long Valley area between Mammoth Lakes and the Glass Mountains. Geothermal waters and energy production will not be discussed further in this Chapter, but are covered in Chapter 10 of this assessment.

Identification of Key Watersheds There are some key watersheds on the Forest that have specific importance. Those that supply large hydroelectric or municipal water supply are described in detail in Chapter 8 – Water Uses. Those that are important for supporting threatened, endangered or sensitive aquatic species are described in detail in Chapter 1 – Aquatic Ecosystems.

Figure 13 Groundwater Basins in the vicinity of the Inyo National Forest

Ecological Roles Water is integral for ecological sustainability, since it is necessary for life. On the Inyo National Forest, which is mainly arid or semi-arid, streams, lakes, springs, and their associated riparian areas are relatively rare and important habitats. For more information about the ecological importance of aquatic and riparian ecosystems, see Chapter 1.

Socio-economic Roles The socio-economic roles of water are many. First, water is necessary for human existence, and water originating on the Inyo National Forest supplies municipal water for communities across central and southern California, as well as agricultural water to California’s Central Valley. It also provides electricity for local and distant populations, and provides recreational opportunities for locals and visitors. Human uses of water are discussed further in the Chapter 8 – Water Uses section. Socio-economic roles of water are described in Chapter 6 of this assessment.

Sensitive Water Features There are some particular water or water-related features that are especially sensitive to stressors, either because of their importance, or because they have a characteristic that makes them more vulnerable to stressors. They are briefly described below and will be discussed in detail throughout this section.

Water Bodies with Major Flow Alterations Some streams and lakes on the Forest have had their water volumes highly altered through human activities, particularly diversions or major flow alterations due to operations of dams for power generation. These streams have altered ecosystems and provide multiple, sometimes conflicting, beneficial uses. Because they already have major, continuing alterations to flow patterns, smaller stressors such as climate change or fire could have a disproportionately larger effect on aquatic or riparian ecosystems. The water bodies with major flow alterations on the Inyo National Forest are Mill, Lee Vining, Rush, Mammoth, Bishop, Birch, McGee (in Bishop Creek basin) and Division Creek, as well as Mono Lake. While many other streams have some diversions and flow alterations, these are major streams and have a significant portion of their flow regulated by diversions or dam operations.

Springs Springs are sensitive water features due to their relative rarity, their small area, and their ecological importance relative to their size. There are approximately 1,470 springs mapped on the Inyo National Forest, although the accuracy of this inventory is unknown. Figure 14 shows a map of all known springs on the Forest. Springs can move due to geologic changes, can have increased or decreased flow with high or low snowfall years, or can dry up due to groundwater pumping. The Forest has very limited information related to spring flow changes over time.

In some arid portions of the Forest, such as the White-Inyo Mountains and lower elevations of the Eastern Sierra Nevada mountain front, springs and streams emanating from them are the only water source, and therefore very important for those ecosystems.

Figure 14 Known springs on and adjacent to the Inyo National Forest. From the US Geological Survey National Hydrologic Dataset, combined with surveys completed by the Inyo National Forest for areas around Mammoth and the Kern Plateau.

Other Key Water Features - Outstanding National Resource Waters Mono Lake is one of two Outstanding National Resource Waters in California. These waters are designated by the State Water Resources Control Board and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This designation means that no degradation of water quality is allowed for Mono Lake. This designation was made to address the lake’s salinity, which had increased due to diversions of inflow streams. While the lake naturally has a high salinity, the salinity had almost doubled between 1941, when water diversions began, and 1991, when the lake was designated as an Outstanding National Resource Water.

Mono Lake, like terminal lakes around the world, is highly sensitive to water diversions of its tributaries. These lakes have inlet streams, but no outlet streams. Water is only lost through evaporation, which leaves behind salts and minerals that have concentrated over hundreds of thousands of years. When input streams are diverted, the lake receives less fresh water. In the case of Mono Lake, diversions by Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) beginning in 1941 reduced lake inflow below evaporative losses, and the lake level began to fall. This increased the lake’s salinity and began to negatively affect the lake’s ecosystem. The Outstanding National Resource Water designation in 1994 required that the lake’s salinity remain below 85 grams/liter. For comparison, ocean water salinity is about 35 grams/liter and the current salinity is about 81 grams/liter (Mono Lake Committee website http://www.monolake.org/about/stats). In 1991, when the lake was designated, salinity was 90 grams/liter (SWRCB 1991) and before diversions, was around 51 grams/liter.

Wetlands Wetlands, such as meadows and fens, are sensitive water-dependent features. They are either groundwater or surface water dependent. Most meadows are considered groundwater dependent because their existence relies on shallow groundwater levels through most of the growing season. These features are sensitive because any drop in water levels can alter their vegetation. They are also important and relatively rare ecosystems over most of the Forest, with higher biodiversity than many other ecosystems. (See Chapter 1 for more information about meadow ecosystems.)

Meadows will be discussed where a driver or stressor has specific impacts to the hydrology of meadow ecosystems.

Current Condition of Water Resources

Watershed Condition – Forestwide

Watershed Condition Assessment The Inyo National Forest completed a Watershed Condition Assessment in 2010, using the 12th field watersheds (as defined by USGS). The purpose of the assessment was to determine watershed’s need for improvement. The assessment determined that about 74% of the watersheds on the Forest are in Good/Functioning condition, while the remaining 26% are in Fair/At Risk condition. Figure 15 shows each watershed’s rating.

The two highest priority watersheds for improvements were determined to be Deadman Creek and Oak Creek. These watersheds were both rated Fair/At Risk, but were not necessarily the watersheds with the lowest condition ratings. In addition to the indicator and attribute ratings for each watershed, the Forest considered the potential for change through forest management actions (i.e., the amount of NFS land in the watershed and the cause of the watershed issue) and the potential for partnerships and job creation. The Forest created implementation plans for implementing restoration actions in these watersheds.

Stream and Floodplain Morphology Stream and floodplain morphology are the fundamental physical/abiotic condition of water bodies. This section will discuss how these physical conditions can be altered.

While streamflow is one factor that can fundamentally change stream hydrology and ecosystems, changes to stream or floodplain morphology can also fundamentally alter stream hydrology and ecosystems. Many of the streams on the Forest are not vulnerable to altered morphology. Those stream segments that are in bedrock, or have large rock or boulder substrate are stable, and are not readily altered through human activities or flooding. Other streams, such as those in meadows with sod banks, are naturally stable but can be easily altered with disturbance. It is within the natural range of variability for streams with gravel banks, such as those on alluvial fans, to change course regularly during high flows. In fact, alluvial fans are created because high flows carry large amounts of sediment from upstream and deposit it across the alluvial fan, sometimes moving with each high flow. Stream morphology and what is considered within the natural range of variability is different for different types of systems. We will focus mainly on streams in meadows here, because they are vulnerable to disturbance and have been altered across the Forest.

Figure 15 Results of the Inyo National Forest’s 2010 Watershed Condition Assessment, showing watershed condition for all of the Forest’s 12th field watersheds, and the two priority watersheds, Deadman Creek and Oak Creek.

Stressors

Grazing In meadows, there is debate about whether streams are naturally stable or naturally meander over time. This is often of management concern because meadow incision and stream widening and instability are usually attributed to grazing, as a result of streambank trampling and livestock trailing. Long et al. (2013) reported that “In the Great Basin, many streams have a natural tendency toward incision and may be prone to channel entrenchment for thousands of years (Germanoski and Miller 2004). However, meadow systems on the western slope of the Sierra Nevada appear to have been stable” for up to 10,000 years (Benedict 1982). Reference erosion rates appear very low in many small headwater streams and in wet meadow systems that have intact streambank vegetation, as reported by studies in the Sierra Nevada (Micheli and Kirchner 2002, Simon 2008). As a consequence, high rates of incision and bank erosion are more likely to be outside the range of historical variation in these systems.” The Inyo National Forest has some meadow systems more similar to west side systems, mainly high elevation meadows in the Sierra Nevada with precipitation similar to the western slope, and some more similar to the Great Basin, with less precipitation, higher temperatures and a longer dry season. Therefore, there is controversy over whether meadow incision is a process within the natural range of variability or one that occurs as a result of grazing.

On the Inyo National Forest, stream and spring morphology condition has been monitored mainly in meadows, as part of grazing effects assessments. The two main methods for monitoring stream morphology have been the Stream Condition Inventory (SCI) protocol (Frazier et al. 2005) and the Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) protocol (Prichard et al. 1999). The SCI protocol is much more intensive than the PFC protocol, and involves quantitative measurements. It has been repeatedly completed in four stream channels in grazing allotments on the Kern Plateau. The results do not determine whether a channel is functioning or not. SCI it is meant to be repeated to determine trends.

Results from PFC evaluations of grazing allotments (sheep and cattle) in the past five years, and meadows in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses monitored from 2000-2004 (mostly pack stock grazed areas; Inyo National Forest 2005) are shown in Table 12 below. A more thorough explanation of PFC and allotment management is included in the Chapter 8 – Range section. “Proper functioning condition” means that a stream can withstand high flows without excessive erosion. Functional-at-risk means that a stream can withstand high events, but has an existing soil, water or vegetation attribute that makes it susceptible to degradation. Nonfunctional means that stream characteristics are not able to dissipate stream energy and not stable during high flows. The results show that for all analyzed streams, a little more than half of all analyzed streams were in proper functioning condition, around 40% were functional-at- risk, and very few were found to be non-functional. Further information about Amendment 6 results and meadow condition is included in Chapter 8 – Range and Chapter 1 – riparian meadow ecosystems.

For the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness meadows, monitoring occurred only in meadows that were reported as grazed by commercial pack stock from 2000-2003. Therefore, those results cannot be considered representative of all wilderness meadows, only those

68 wilderness meadows that are grazed or have been grazed in the past. In the cattle and sheep grazing allotments, monitoring was completed in “key areas”, or areas that are selected to represent conditions across the allotment. Although they were originally designated in areas that received grazing, up to 50 years ago, key areas are not necessarily the areas that receive grazing today. Therefore, they can be considered to be indicative of conditions across cattle and sheep grazing allotments as a whole, in grazed and ungrazed areas. It is notable that results from the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness areas are very similar to the cattle and sheep grazing allotments on the Forest. This suggests that in the areas we monitored, stream morphology effects from horses and mules are similar to that of cattle and sheep.

Table 12. Ratings for Proper Functioning Condition for stream reaches in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness (areas grazed by pack stock – horses and mules) and for cattle and sheep grazing allotments. All of these analyses were completed in the past 12 years. Results are shown as percent (number) of sites.

Meadows in the Ansel Proper Functioning Condition Adams and John Muir Cattle and Sheep Ratings Wildernesses Grazing Allotments Proper Functioning Condition 59%(90) 59% (67) Functional-at-risk 40% (60) 37%(42) Non-functional 1% (2) 4%(5)

Since 2005, when the Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses Record of Decision was signed, all meadows in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wilderness with non-functional rated streams were closed to grazing until further monitoring shows them moving into the at-risk category. Three of the non-functional sites in the cattle and sheep allotments are springs in the Crowley Allotments and have since been fenced to exclude livestock. The two others are from the segment of the South Fork Kern River that flows through Monache Meadow. This area experienced a large flood in the early 1980s that caused a segment of the river to incise up to ten feet, leaving sandy exposed banks that remain poorly vegetated and unstable. Much of this section is fenced off to cattle use and is gradually revegetating in places. The unfenced areas and some of the fenced areas remain poorly vegetated and unstable, though the fenced areas have greater vegetative recovery.

SCI was monitored on four stream reaches on the Kern Plateau in 2003, and again in 2008-2012. SCI results have many components, and cannot be tabulated in a simple table. In general, results show that of the four stream segments that were assessed for trend, there was little change in stream morphology and many parameters had variable results. There were no sites with negative changes. Modified SCI monitoring, which involves measuring a subset of the entire SCI protocol, was completed repeatedly at 50 sites in 23 separate meadows between 1998 and 2010, about half of which are in rested meadows and half in meadows remaining open to grazing. Results are summarized in Ettema and Sims (2010), as follows:

“Overall, trends in physical stream habitat were variable and appeared to be related to site specific environmental factors and land management practices. Greatest improvements in stream habitat were observed in Templeton (rested) and Monache

(grazed) meadows, both of which were previously identified as the most degraded sites on the Kern Plateau. Habitat improvements at Tunnel and Templeton meadows seemed to be a product of rest from grazing. Also, no surveyed site (grazed or ungrazed) appeared to decline in condition, suggesting current management practices are sufficient for protecting existing conditions.”

Repeat monitoring of headcuts also was completed on the Kern Plateau to understand the effects of grazing removal on headcut growth or stability. Of the four Kern Plateau grazing allotments, two were rested from 2001 to the present, and two have remained open. The Forest recorded active headcuts on streams in 2003, and again in 2009. Although not analyzed for statistical significance, results showed that there was no difference between the stability of active headcuts in grazed and non-grazed areas (Inyo National Forest watershed staff files). Most headcuts active in 2003 had continued to erode beyond their 2003 extent, both in grazed and ungrazed allotments, but by 2009, were stabilizing.

The above results show that stream and spring morphology have been affected by grazing on the Forest, but that more recent grazing practices seem to be allowing for maintenance of current conditions or improvement in most areas. Most of the effects are trampling from hoof action, stream incision, widening, or headcutting. We have found that vegetation usually recovers within years when grazing management is altered or when grazing is excluded from a streamside area, but recovery of stream morphology can take longer, and may require some active restoration.

Herbst et al. (2012) found that many stream morphology metrics were significantly different in grazed verses ungrazed areas on Kern Plateau within the Inyo National Forest, including bank erosion, bank angle, and percent fines. Many other studies have also found that grazing is associated with increased bank erosion, decreased substrate size, and wider and shallow streams in the Sierra Nevada (e.g. Micheli and Kirchner 2002, Kondolf 1993, Hagberg 1994).

In the past 20 years, much restoration work has been completed in meadows on the Forest, especially the Kern Plateau. Although a systematic inventory has not been completed, observations by Forest staff suggest that, even in allotments that remain open to grazing, restoration and changes in grazing management appear to have improved stream and meadow condition overall. There are still some areas with active headcuts, unstable gullies, or relict gullies that may take centuries to aggrade. It is possible that some may not return to their pre- gully morphology.

Fires and Fuels Treatments Severe wildfires can affect stream morphology through removal of riparian vegetation and sometimes large woody debris in the channel that decrease streambank stability. Wildfires can also lead to debris flows that completely alter stream channels (See ‘Soils’ section of this Chapter). These processes are within the natural range of variability, because fire is a natural part of the ecosystem.

Fuels treatments and logging have the potential to affect stream morphology if heavy equipment drives through stream channels and changes the shape of the banks, or if activities

70 cause enough compaction to alter runoff patterns, increase streamflow, and lead to greater stream bank erosion. We have not observed any of these phenomena on the Forest related to past or current fuels treatments. Most of the areas with logging in the past are in the area of high timber productivity in the Jeffrey Pine Forest north of Mammoth. This region also has little surface water, and stream crossings have bridges. Best management practices (BMPs,) such as those that that require keeping heavy equipment a certain distance from channels, use of temporary bridges, and designation of skid trail locations, among others, have all proven effective at preventing alteration of stream morphology. There is no evidence that timber harvest in the past has led to stream morphology alteration.

Recreation and Development Recreational uses, such as hiking, fishing, or OHV use, can affect stream morphology. In developed campgrounds or high use fishing areas on the Forest, it is common that streambanks are devoid of vegetation and paths accessing streams cause erosion and alteration of stream morphology. The loss of vegetation can reduce their stability during high flows.

Road or trail crossings of streams, either at bridges or at low water crossings, alter stream morphology directly at the crossing, but there are very few cases across the Forest where they have led to noticeable changes in stream morphology. The exceptions are at a few culvert crossings, where high velocities at the culvert outlet or other disruption in hydrology has led to downstream erosion. Wyman Canyon Road (Road 6S01) has major gullying at lower elevations, likely due to a blowout related to a road crossing. Other exceptions are the few OHV roads that are located in a stream channel, some of which are due to diversion of flow by an existing road causing the stream to move into the road bed. These areas are always considered high priority for restoration and the instances have gradually been reduced over time with active restoration projects.

Water Quality

General Water Quality Water quality is generally good on the Inyo National Forest, due to low levels of development, low populations, and the large percent of the Forest in designated Wilderness. The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power uses water from the Mono and Owens River watersheds for municipal use, and in their annual water quality reports, show that water quality at their Los Angeles Aqueduct filtration plant always met all drinking water standards. There was some arsenic and uranium detected, but it was below drinking water standard limits (LADWP 2011).

Although water quality is generally good, there are some water bodies known to have water quality degradation. The State Water Resources Control Board has placed four water bodies on the 303(d) list that have at least some portion on the Forest. The 303(d) list is a list of water bodies that are water quality limited. Table 13 shows the list of water bodies on the most recent (2010) 303(d) list, the pollutant(s) for which they are listed, and the potential source of the pollutant(s).

Table 13. Water bodies on the Forest that are on the California State Water Quality Control Board’s 2010 list of water quality limited segments (303(d) list).

Water Body Segment Pollutant(s) Potential Source Mono Lake Entire lake (39,743 Total Dissolved Solids/ Flow regulation/ acres) Salinity/ Chlorides modification, natural sources and unknown source Mammoth Creek Headwaters to -Manganese -Natural sources confluence with Hot -Mercury -Natural sources Creek (6 miles) -Total Dissolved Solids -Unknown Hilton Creek Headwaters to Lake Dissolved Oxygen (low Unknown Crowley (9 miles) levels) Rock Creek Headwaters to Total Dissolved Solids Surface mining confluence with Owens River (33 miles)

Six other water bodies on the Forest were analyzed for impairment, but were determined not to be warranted for placement on the list.

Beyond those streams listed on the 303(d) list, little is known about site-specific water quality across the Forest. While much more data exists than is presented in this paper, particularly data collected through the California State Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP), those data have not been compiled and summarized at this time. Those sites that have had water quality testing that has been previously compiled are discussed below, under the stressor for which the site is being tested.

The Forest uses the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) as a proxy for water quality monitoring, and completes very little quantitative water quality monitoring outside of a few specific areas. Although it does not provide quantitative water quality results, this approach has been generally accepted by the State and Regional water boards,. The program monitors 24 different activity types, including timber, engineering, recreation, grazing, mining, and prescribed fire, to determine whether the region’s best management practices were implemented properly, and whether they were effective at preventing water pollution. Region 5 National Forests are all required to complete a specific number of evaluations of best management practice implementation and effectiveness each year, at randomly selected sites. The Regional Office specifies the number of each specific activity that needs to be monitored. The Forest has completed these evaluations from 1994 through the present. Results for the Inyo National Forest show that of the 465 evaluations completed, 59% of practices were effective at protecting water quality, 11% protected but had risk of affecting water quality, and 18% did not protect water quality. Another 12% were not rated, usually due to a problem in the database system. Most of those activities that negatively affected water quality were recreational activities, such as campgrounds, which are often placed near water. Specific stressors and their effects on water quality are discussed below.

Stressors

Diversions Diversions can lead to water quality effects because they remove water from the system, concentrating any pollutants that may be in the water. This can also increase temperature. The only water body known to have water quality degradation due to diversions is Mono Lake, which, as shown in Table 13, is on the 303(d) list for total dissolved solids/salinity/chlorides. This issue was described in the “Outstanding National Resource Waters” section above. The 1994 State Water Resources Board water rights decision 1361 addressed Mono Lake’s water quality degradation and attainment is expected by 2019.

Land Uses – Urban/Suburban Development, Recreational Activities, Mining, and Illegal Activities Developed recreation sites, such as ski areas and campgrounds, as well as unpaved roads, have the potential to affect water quality due to sediment inputs from erosion. Erosion potential from these sites is described thoroughly in the “Soil” section of this chapter.

The only recreational sites with regular surface water quality monitoring are Mammoth Mountain and June Mountain Ski Areas. Ski areas have waste discharge requirements directly with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board to monitor water quality in and downstream of the ski area.

Mammoth Mountain is required by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board to test water quality in streams within the ski area boundary and downstream, weekly during snowmelt. Ski areas can contribute to water quality degradation for multiple constituents. They can cause increased turbidity due to vegetation removal and grading of ski runs, which runs off during spring snow melt. Mammoth Mountain Ski Area also uses salt (a blend of sodium chloride and magnesium chloride) to improve the quality of runs during spring conditions, which can increase sodium, magnesium, and chloride levels in downstream waters. Both Mammoth and June Mountain also add “Snomax” to manmade snow. Snomax is a trade name for freeze dried and irradiated Psudomonas Syringae bacteria. Because the bacteria is sterilized, there are no known water quality or plan pathogenic effects known. However, we could not find any studies determining water quality effects of Snomax, so its effects on water quality are unknown.

Both Mammoth and June Mountain Ski Areas test water quality during spring snowmelt for many constituents, including chloride, pH, Total Suspended Solids, nitrogen, phosphorous and turbidity. The Forest has summarized data from 2000 through 2010. Most of Mammoth Mountain drains into Dry Creek or the Town of Mammoth Lakes stormwater system, both of which infiltrate into the ground before reaching any larger water body. A small portion of the mountain is in the Mammoth Creek watershed. The Lahontan Water Board has specific standards for waters that drain into the Mammoth Creek watershed, but other waters must only meet EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCL) (LRWQCB 1995). For chloride, the constituent that most directly measures effects from salting, the highest level ever measured for streams within the ski area boundary was 95 mg/L, below the MCL of 250 mg/L. Runoff from the portions of Mammoth Mountain that are salted in spring have higher chloride levels than background levels in Mammoth Creek (1-5 mg/L) or runoff from portions of Mammoth

Mountain that are rarely salted, but chloride levels have always been within standards at all measuring sites.

June Mountain Ski Area also measures water quality during spring runoff. Because it is usually closed earlier than Mammoth Mountain, June Mountain does not salt runs to the same extent as Mammoth Mountain. Chloride levels in runoff from June Mountain were always less than 3.5 mg/L, usually from 1.5-3 with background levels ranging from 1.5-2.5 mg/L. Therefore, chloride levels in runoff from June Mountain meet MCL standards and are very similar to background levels.

Turbidity was only measured at June Mountain Ski Area in one year, and showed very low turbidity levels. Levels at Mammoth Mountain fluctuate throughout the runoff season, with high levels (up to 200-400 NTU [Nephelometric Turbidity Units]). The Mammoth Mountain Ski Area has specific standards in its discharge requirements that apply to those waters that drain into Mammoth Creek. Only one measuring point, downstream of the Chair 9 loading area, flows into Mammoth Creek. Turbidity at that point has always measured below 8 NTU, well within the standard.

Unpaved roads and trails have the potential to contribute sediment to surface water. The effect of roads on water quality has been extensively studied, and is linked directly to road erosion, which is discussed in detail in the “Soil” section of this chapter. If roads cause erosion, and that erosion enters water, it causes increased sedimentation and water quality degradation. It is uncertain what amount of sediment enters water on the Forest from road erosion, though estimates have been made. In the Chapter 2 topic paper for the Bioregional Assessment, Hill estimated that sedimentation rates into water from system roads on the Inyo National Forest range from 0.01 to 0.06 tons/acre/year without implementation of any road BMPs. However, this calculation did not account for stream density on the Forest. A GIS analysis completed for this topic paper showed that about half of all motorized trail and unpaved road miles are within 500 feet of a perennial or intermittent water body. These are the road segments that have potential to affect water quality without proper design. It is unknown how many miles of these roads are actually hydrologically connected to water bodies or do contribute sediment to surface water.

Recent restoration activities by the Forest have focused on reducing hydrologic connectivity of roads to water bodies, and therefore reducing sediment input into water from roads. These efforts include adding drainage such as waterbars, adding bridges at crossings, hardening water crossings, and installing rolling dips near crossings to ensure that roads do not divert stream water. These efforts are generally successful at reducing sediment input into water.

Most current mining on the Inyo National Forest occurs in dry areas with little potential for water quality impacts. However, some inactive mines are located near water bodies and have potential to affect water quality. Generally, there are few known impacts to water quality directly associated with any one mine. Limited water quality data has been collected below mines to determine their effects to water quality. In many other Forests across California and the United States, acid mine drainage is a major water quality stressor. However, water quality sampling at four inactive mine sites (Log Cabin, Rex Montis, Pine Creek Tungsten Mine and

Mammoth Mine) showed that only one sample, at the mine adit from the Log Cabin mine site near Lee Vining, had any acidity. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board regulatory standard for pH in surface waters is 6.5-8.5. The Log Cabin mine drainage water was found to have a pH of 6.3, which is slightly acidic. The receiving water was found to have a pH within the acceptable range, and therefore the mine drainage does not appear to be affecting acidity of any water body.

Other constituents associated with hard rock mining are arsenic, mercury, and other metals. Limited water quality monitoring indicates that mining has not been associated with water quality effects in most areas other than Mammoth Creek. Arsenic was found to be higher than the standard of 50 ug/L at the Hanna Mill Site in Lundy Canyon; the area was closed to camping and fishing and remediation was conducted in summer 2012. Mammoth Creek is on the 303(d) list for mercury and manganese, and water quality testing has been completed by CalTrout in 2012 and 2013 to help pinpoint the source of these constituents. The data is not yet conclusive, but shows that the water exiting the mine adit does not contain elevated levels of mercury or magnesium, but that waters downstream, in Mill Creek, have high levels of mercury in spring and summer months, but less during sampling in October. The source of mercury and magnesium has not yet been determined, and it has not yet been determined if it is related to the old Mammoth Mine or not.

Suction dredging is a form of mining where a vacuum is used to suck sediments out of creek, lake, or along stream or lake banks, to extract minerals. Suction dredging has not occurred within Inyo or Mono Counties for over fifty years. The State of California has had a moratorium on suction dredging since 2009, with no end date (Fish & G. Code, § 5653 subd. (d)). At this time, there is no reasonable expectation that waters on the Forest will be reopened to suction dredging during the next planning period. If the state moratorium were lifted and suction dredging were to occur on the Forest, it would likely lead to local water quality degradation due to increased sediment, possible increased heavy metals in the water column, and effects to stream morphology due to removal of sediment from stream beds.

Human pathogens, such as giardia, cryptosporidium, and various bacteria, can enter water through various means, including recreational use, leaks and spills, or animal manure in water. There has not been extensive monitoring of human pathogens across the Forest, but there have been a few small studies, mostly within wilderness areas. These studies have generally shown existing, but low levels of human pathogens in waters within wilderness areas of the Forest, though testing has been over too small and area and too infrequent to determine whether human pathogens such as giardia are present throughout wilderness areas. Future studies would be helpful to help wilderness travelers understand health risks of drinking water in the wilderness.

The little water quality data that exist within the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses (AA/JM) indicate that common human pathogens, such as giardia, cryptosporidium and other non-pathogenic indicators of fecal contamination, such as fecal coliform, exist in varying concentrations. Giardia has been found in waters within the AA/JM Wilderness areas of the Inyo National Forest at low concentrations (Suk et al. 1987). No studies have collected giardia data at the same place more than twice throughout the year, or in subsequent years, and

75 therefore the results cannot be used to determine general water quality or effects of recreational use on water quality.

Studies outside of the AA/JM Wildernesses but in other Sierra Nevada wilderness areas, have found that giardia and coliform levels are generally higher in areas heavily used by backpackers, pack stock, or grazing livestock, but are sometimes high in areas with light use and sometimes low in areas with heavy use (Derlet and Carlson, 2004; Suk et al., 1987). For example, some high use recreation sites, such as the Mount Whitney Trail, have been found to have low fecal coliform levels while others (such as the Cottonwood Lakes area) have levels that exceed the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board standard. While fecal coliform is an indicator of fecal material that could be pathogenic, presence of fecal coliform does not directly correlate with giardia or other human pathogens (Inyo National Forest 2005, Derlet et al. 2004).

There have been few studies about nutrients in Sierra Nevada lakes, and no studies were found that discussed terrestrial nutrient inputs. A few studies suggest that algae and phosphorous levels have increased in some Sierra Nevada lakes over a wide area in the past two decades (Sickman et al., 2003; Schindler et al., 2001). These studies cite introduced fish and atmospheric deposition as causes. These factors could affect Inyo National Forest lakes, but both are outside the control of Inyo National Forest management. Sickman et al. (2003) suggested that the widespread nature of eutrophication suggests that nutrients entering lakes are airborne. We could not find any studies documenting nutrient contributions from recreational activities on the Forest, but increasing nutrient levels could occur from human waste, soap used for washing, sunscreen washed off in lakes, or packstock manure.

Water quality effects of other recreational uses, such as dispersed and developed camping, are not well known. Similar to other recreational sites, they could cause increased sedimentation into water if they are near water and are denuded of vegetation. Further, at dispersed sites, human waste may not be disposed of properly, and could affect fecal coliform levels in water bodies. However, in the few sites where water quality has been measured near dispersed campgrounds, fecal coliform levels meet standards.

The Forest uses some herbicides to control highly invasive species on the Forest that cannot be effectively treated without the use of chemicals (Inyo National Forest 2007). It also uses Sporax (brand name for Borax) to treat cut stumps to prevent annuous root disease (a fungus) in nearby live trees. The Inyo National Forest Weed Eradication and Control on the Inyo National Forest Environmental Assessment (Inyo National Forest 2007) includes best management practices for application of herbicides, including application near water. With these practices, it is assumed that there is no effect to surface water from herbicide application completed by the Forest. It is unknown whether sources off of the Forest affect water quality on the Forest.

Illegal activities can affect water quality, although the Forest often does not know about such activities and does not monitor the effects. Such activities could include dumping of waste oil or other toxins, marijuana cultivation, or illegal off-road driving. The Forest has very little known or reported illegal dumping of toxins (Rich Watt, Inyo National Forest law enforcement, personal communication, August 16, 2013). Marijuana cultivation does occur on the Forest, and can have detrimental water quality effects. Growers often use fertilizer and pesticides that can

76 leach into the water after use. Further, leftover fertilizer and pesticides are often left behind or dumped near streams, and can enter water. Growers also divert water from a stream or spring, and often block up the stream with dams made of soil and vegetation, which increases sediment in stream. Garbage and human waste may be disposed of in or near creeks. Although the number of illegal marijuana cultivation sites on the Forest is unknown, somewhere on the order of 20 sites have been found in the past ten years.

Grazing Grazing has the potential to affect water quality through two main processes. First, cattle urine or manure can enter water bodies, increasing levels of nutrients, bacteria and pathogens. Erosion effects from grazing, discussed above under the “stream morphology” section and in the “Soils” section of this chapter, can increase sediment in surface waters. Studies have shown increases in fine sediment and decreases in substrate size in streams on the Kern Plateau, where grazing has occurred for about 150 years (Stephens et al. 2003, Herbst et al. 2011).

Quantitative data was collected in 2011 and 2012 to assess the effects of cattle on fecal coliform levels in streams. While fecal coliform is not a human pathogen, it is used as an estimate of fecal matter in the water that could contain harmful pathogens. These data have shown a local increase in fecal coliform levels in streams where cattle are present, in a few cases far higher than the standard. The current standard for the Lahontan region is 20 coliform forming units per 100 milliliters (20 cfu/100 ml) (LRWQCB 1995b). In all other California regions, the standard is 200 cfu/100 ml. Quantitative measurements of fecal coliform in cattle grazed areas have been collected on the east side of the White Mountains as well as in Cottonwood Creek on the Kern Plateau. Sampling was completed by the Inyo National Forest as well as the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and their partners. Results are shown in Table 14.

Results showed that during cattle presence, fecal coliform levels met the 20 cfu/100 ml standard in 14% of samples. Fecal coliform levels were below the 200 cfu/100 ml level in 45% of samples and were over the 200 cfu/100 ml level in 55% of samples. In grazed areas where cattle were not present at the time of sampling, fecal coliform was always below 200 cfu/100 ml. In areas that were never grazed (background levels), all samples met the Lahontan standard of less than 20 cfu/100 ml. Study designs or reporting were not sufficient to determine timing or spatial extent of effects. Samples were not taken downstream of grazing to determine how far downstream effects persisted. Results are summarized in Goehring 2012, Goehring 2013 and Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board 2012.

Although no statistical analysis has been completed, it appears that in areas with low flow, fecal coliform levels are high, and when flow is higher, levels are lower. This pattern does not apply with recent rain, which tends to increase fecal coliform levels. The few samples taken the day after a rainstorm had high levels of coliform (over 1,600 cfu/100 ml), even though flows were high on that day. Again, study designs were not sufficient to determine timing or spatial extent of effects.

Table 14. Number of fecal coliform samples taken to determine effects of cattle grazing on fecal coliform levels in surface water on the Inyo National Forest in 2011 and 2012. Samples were taken in the Round Valley area near the Cottonwood Creek trailhead, and in Crooked Creek and Indian Creek on the east side of the White Mountains.

Number of samples within each fecal coliform category < 20 cfu/100 20-200 cfu/100 over 200 cfu/100 Presence of grazing ml ml ml Total Grazed area – cattle present during sampling 3 7 12 22 Grazed area – no cattle present at time of sampling 29 12 0 41 Never grazed area 15 0 0 15

Although no data was collected on the Inyo National Forest, Roche et al. (2013) recently collected 743 stream water samples, 462 of which were on active grazing allotments, across National Forests in Northern California. Their results showed that grazing allotments as a whole had similar percentages of samples within the fecal coliform categories of over 20 or 200 cfu/100 ml level as areas without any concentrated uses. However, at sites where sampling was done where cattle were in view at the time of sampling, the mean fecal coliform level was about four times higher than when samples were taken at times when no cattle were observed near the site. The mean fecal coliform level for sites with cattle present at the time of sampling was 205 cfu/100 ml and for all samples in grazing allotments, the mean was 87 cfu/100 ml. The general trend is similar to the Inyo National Forest results, which found that fecal coliform levels are higher when cattle are present at the time of sampling, but return to lower levels when cows are not present.

In all cases, including those on the Inyo National Forest and in the Roche et al. (2013) study, fecal coliform levels were inversely correlated with flow. That is, due to dilution, fecal coliform levels are lower when flows are higher.

Grazing can be managed to reduce effects to water quality, and many of those actions have been implemented throughout the Forest on grazing allotments. In some areas, springs and stream channels have been fenced off, limiting the animals’ access to water. This directly reduces manure input into streams and reduces stream bank trampling. Permittees can also more actively move their herds, moving them out of riparian areas and encouraging more upland grazing. Further, salting and installation of troughs can keep animals away from water and reduce manure input into streams and reduce stream bank trampling. On sheep allotments across the Forest, sheep are watered with water trucks in upland areas, and in many cases have no access to surface water throughout their allotment. In other cases, they have a few limited areas where they can drink directly out of surface water, but are mostly watered out of water trucks and troughs.

Air Pollution The Air Quality section of this chapter explains the types of air pollution known on the Forest.

Some types of air pollution, such as nitrates, can be carried in the air and deposited in water bodies. Some research has been completed on the Forest to determine whether any of these pollutants has affected water quality. They have focused mainly on lake acidification, because lakes in the High Sierra area have low acid neutralization capacity and are therefore vulnerable to acidification with very low levels of acidic input. Studies have found that a few lakes in high elevations can have episodic acidification, but have no chronic acidification effects, and most lakes do not have even episodic acidification (Stoddard and Sickman 2002).

Wildfires and Planned Fuel Treatments Timber harvest and prescribed fires have not been found to cause water quality degradation on the Forest. While quantitative water quality monitoring has not been completed in areas of fuel treatments, the BMPEP results show that of the 72 evaluations completed on timber sales, fuels treatment projects, and prescribed burns, all were effective at protecting water quality. However, five fuel treatment projects were at risk of affecting water quality.

Wildfires have the potential to have major negative impacts to water quality (see Soils section of this chapter for information on erosion effects of wildfires). These effects may be within the natural range of variability, because wildfires have always occurred on the Forest. However, fire suppression and invasive species have increased fire severity while decreasing fire frequency. In areas with active fire suppression over the past century, soil erosion and water quality effects from fires may be greater than under the natural range of variability. Quantitative water quality monitoring has not been completed after fires on the Forest. However, as discussed in the “Soil” section of this chapter, the Oak Creek and Haiwee Creek floods, which occurred within 2 years of wildfires, caused large debris flows that obviously impacted water quality. Oak Creek supplies water to the Fort Independence Indian Reservation, and the Oak Creek fire and flood greatly affected water quality for this community.

Water Flows / Quantity Alteration of water flows is a much more widespread and severe impact to water resources on the Inyo National Forest than alteration of water quality. Flows are altered mainly through diversions for municipal and domestic use and operation of hydroelectric systems. There are likely some minor, local effects from altered runoff from development, but they are likely too small to be measured on a watershed scale. Climate change has the potential to affect flows, and is thought to have already caused some changes to the timing of snowmelt and peak flows. Each stressor and their effects to flows will be discussed below.

Stressors

Diversions and Hydroelectric Alterations Diversions for municipal and domestic use, as well as operation of dams for hydroelectricity, are by far the largest stressor for flows on the Forest. Location and types of water diversion and dams are described in Chapter 8. The effects of those diversion and dams will be discussed here.

Figure 16 shows the major dams on the Forest and the streams with flow affected. Of the 1,640

79 miles of perennial streams on the Forest (as defined by the USGS National Hydrologic Database water body layer), only about 7%, or 117 miles of perennial stream, are downstream of a dam. Therefore, about 93% of the perennial streams on the Forest are free flowing and stream flows are functioning mostly within their range of natural variability. For the altered streams, effects to flow are minimal for those streams with small dams from which water diversion is no longer occurring. About half of the altered streams are downstream from large dams with major flow alterations. The streams below large dams are all of the highest flowing streams on the Forest, so those once likely had the greatest extent of riparian vegetation and aquatic habitat.

Figure 16 does not show the smaller diversions, usually for one ranch, resort, or other privately owned property, that are on the Forest. While we have spatial information for water rights, that information is not reliable for determining the location of diversions. It is known that there are numerous diversions on Forest land where the user diverts all or most of the water, leaving streams dry downstream of the diversion during most of the year. This is true for at least four streams on the west slope of the White Mountains, as well as about a mile of Division Creek near Independence. While it would be useful for management purposes to have a catalogue of diversions and impoundments, showing the type of facility, amount and season of actual diversions, and stream condition near those diversions, we do not have that data for most smaller diversions across the Forest. We do have location data when users have special use permits with the Forest, but it is not compiled in one location and the information is not complete. This is a data gap in understanding water use and effects of diversions on Forest streams.

The 1988 Inyo National Forest LRMP reported that almost 50 miles of stream on the Forest were totally dewatered from diversions and dam operations. We do not have the data used for that estimate, and so cannot determine which streams were considered dewatered at that time or how many of those miles have had flow returned. However, we do know that every major stream that was dewatered in 1988 has been rewatered through the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) dam relicensing process, or due to third party lawsuits. The major streams that have been rewatered are Mill Creek, Rush Creek, Lee Vining Creek, Bishop Creek, Birch Creek and McGee Creek. These streams all previously had dry segments on the Forest, due to diversions, that have now been rewatered. Portions of Lee Vining Creek, between the Ellery Lake Dam and Poole Powerhouse (about 2 miles) are still dry much of the time during summer months. Further, smaller diversions on smaller streams still dewater entire stream segments, although the Forest does not have information about the number of small diversions that dewater streams.

Alpert et al. (2012) report the percent diverted from some stream tributaries to the Upper Owens River (Table 2-9). It shows that diversions range from less than one percent of annual stream flow to over 60% of their annual flow diverted. It would be useful to have this information for all streams on the Forest in order to make more informed management decisions.

Off of the Forest, about 60 miles of the Lower Owens River have been rewatered since 2006, from south of Big Pine and the Owens Lake, and about 10 miles were rewatered in the Owens River Gorge section of the river, north of Bishop.

Although water has been returned to most major streams, flows are still highly regulated in most major streams on the Forest. As stated previously in the General Extent and Location section above, the streams and rivers with major flow alterations (but of varying degrees) on the Inyo National Forest are Mill, Lee Vining, Rush, Mammoth, Bishop and Division Creeks. All of these major streams are now subject to static instream flow requirements, which mandate a specific flow during one season, and sometimes another flow during another season. For example, Lee Vining Creek below the Poole Powerhouse is required to have 27 cubic feet/second (cfs) from August through May, and 89 cfs from June through July (or natural flows, whichever is less). The changes in flow can be relatively sudden, rather than gradually increasing and decreasing as would occur under a natural flow regime. This type of flow regulation does not allow for the natural high peak flows to occur in these streams, except when spillage during very high flows. The attenuation of high peak flows often leads to sediment building up in channels, lack of scouring flows that leave bare soil for riparian vegetation introduction, and lack of natural stream meandering and erosion. In some streams, such as Rush Creek, experimental peak flows have been released to study effects on aquatic and riparian habitat, though no streams yet have mandated flushing flows. Despite continued flow regulations, great improvements in aquatic and riparian habitat due to reintroduction of flows have been made in the past 20 years across the Forest.

Figure 16 Dams and streams with flow alterations downstream from dams.

Land Uses – Urban/Suburban, Grazing, Recreational Activities The Forest has relatively little development upstream of or on Forest lands, and therefore the effect of land uses on surface water flow is minor and too small to be measured on a watershed scale. Development does affect flows in urban areas, where roads, buildings, and other paved and compacted surfaces do not absorb rainfall or snowmelt. The runoff therefore remains on the surface and enters water bodies more quickly and with greater volume than without development. Without development, more rainfall or snowmelt would have been absorbed into the ground, and is slowly metered out to surface water.

Although every watershed has some roads, and many have development such as recreation residences, resorts, ski areas, and campgrounds, there are no known effects to flows from the increase in impervious surfaces from this development. Cumulative watershed effects analysis are designed to determine whether these alterations to flow could occur in a specific watershed. Cumulative watershed effects analysis is discussed in the Soils section of this chapter. An estimation of the percent of each watershed impacted by development was completed for the entire Forest (Inyo National Forest, 2009). It found that the most heavily impacted watershed, Mammoth Creek, had less than 6% of its area impervious. The threshold for effects is anywhere between 14% and 20% in each watershed. Therefore, because no watershed had over 6% impervious surfaces, it is assumed that there are no watershed-wide flow alterations from ground disturbance on the Forest. There are known areas of local impacts, however.

Interest has been expressed in increasing water yield through vegetation removal on the Forest, particularly through the removal of willows along stream banks. This used to be a practice to increase water yield of springs or to increase water levels in meadows, but the practice has not been used in recent years. The results of cutting trees and scrub on water yield in streams has been extensively studied all over the world and in California, though we could find no studies on the Inyo National Forest. While these studies and models generally show that water yield increases when trees or other woody vegetation is removed (e.g. Brown et al. 2005, Bosch and Hewlett 1982), studies on water yield changes due to removal of willows or other riparian vegetation are very limited (Fox 1977). Many studies also show that, without herbicide use or other means to keep vegetation suppressed, water yields tend to return to their pre-treatment values within 5-10 years, and often water yields are actually reduced after a few years as new vegetation grows back, since young trees can use more water than older trees. Willows in particular grow from their roots, and sometimes can begin to grow back within days of being cut or burned.

Further, some studies have found that in areas receiving less than 15 inches of rain, there is no potential for water yield increase (Hibbert 1983). About half of the Forest, including the lower elevation portions of the Sierra Nevada and almost the entire White-Inyo Mountain Range, receive less than 15 inches of rain. Most relevant studies agree that the potential for improving water yield decreases with decreasing precipitation (Brown et al. 2005). Attempts to increase water yield through removing riparian vegetation could also result in increased streambank erosion and sediment yield as vegetation is removed, and would need to be analyzed to determine potential negative as well as positive effects to downstream users.

Meadow Incision Meadow incision can affect stream flow because when a stream is incised, less water is able to be stored in meadow soils. Therefore, less of the runoff is absorbed, and more runoff travels more quickly into streams, increasing peak flows. Further, low flows during the summer may be lower, or streams may dry out completely if enough water storage is lost in a meadow. When a meadow is functioning properly, it can slowly release water throughout the summer, but with meadow incision, some of that function is lost, runoff occurs more quickly and there is less water available for summer stream flows (Loehide et al. 2009).

There has not been a recent, systematic monitoring effort to determine the percent of meadows on the Inyo National Forest that have stream incision, though Forest staff has general knowledge of known sites. Table 12 shows meadow stream functional condition for analyzed meadows in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses, as well as grazing allotments. It can be assumed that meadows with non-functional streams have altered streamflow, and those with at-risk streams could have some minor flow alteration, though the degree of flow alteration is unknown, if it occurs at all. Very few meadows were found to have non-functional streams, but over one-third were found to have at-risk streams.

An updated Forest-wide inventory of stream incision in meadows would be helpful for prioritizing future restoration activities or need for management change.

Climate Change The effects of climate change on streamflows has been documented for the Sierra Nevada. Peak flows have begun to occur earlier, due to earlier snowmelt (Stewart et al. 2004). Although local data has not been analyzed in detail, numerous members of the public and Inyo National Forest staff have noted that springs that used to flow year-round now dry up, and some small streams have shorter seasons of flow. It is unknown whether this is a long-term trend, or the result of two years of below-average precipitation.

Information about existing climate change and future modeled climate change is detailed in Chapter 3 – Drivers/Stressors. That chapter discusses predictions, changes over the past 50 years, and uncertainties in modeling. This topic paper uses information from Chapter 3 to assess conditions and trends for water resources.

Flow Regimes Needed to Sustain Biotic and Abiotic Integrity The flow regimes needed to sustain biotic and abiotic integrity of aquatic ecosystems is not a simple calculation, and is, in fact, unknown. Countless studies and protocols have been developed to determine streamflows necessary to protect ecosystem integrity (e.g. Carlisle et al. 2010, Arthington et al. 2006, Yarnell et al. 2012). Most of these protocols used in the western United States have been based on fish habitat or macroinvertebrate assemblages. Because fish are not native to most of the streams on the Inyo National Forest, using these protocols does not necessarily address the natural range of variability (NRV). When determining instream flow requirements for FERC relicensing over the past 20 years, the Forest developed three goals (in the Southern California Edison Monitoring Plans):

1. Achieve an adequate variety of vegetation types necessary to provide for the natural diversity of biotic communities

2. Provide for the long-term stability and integrity of watersheds affected by the Project

3. Achieve 80% of the vegetative and site potential within riparian zones affected by the Project.

Extensive riparian and aquatic monitoring has been completed by Southern California Edison and the Forest since 1991, but the data has not yet conclusively determined whether the flow releases are meeting these goals. Variability in results is too high to draw conclusions, and it is difficult to determine what the post-dam potential should be. In future FERC relicensing projects, the Forest should carefully define measurable goals for the biotic and abiotic integrity of aquatic ecosystems, if we are to determine whether stated goals are met. Aquatic macroinvertebrates can be used as an indicator of stream health, because they are sensitive to changes in flow, water temperature, and other metrics that can be affected by water diversions (Gore et al. 2001), and provide a reliable measure of overall stream health (Herbst 2009). Herbst and Silldorff (2009) developed a benthic macroinvertebrate index of biologic integrity for the Eastern Sierra Nevada that could be useful in future relicensing. That and other indicators should be further explored in future FERC relicensing projects to better understand effects of any flow requirements.

Many studies have been completed to document the aquatic and physical condition of Mono Lake and its tributaries, as part of the requirements of LADWP’s water rights license. There, the effect of different flows can be more easily quantified, as it affects the Lake’s salinity and therefore ability to support its unique aquatic ecosystem. For more information on Mono Lake and water quality effects of flows, see the “Water Quality” section above.

Groundwater – Quality, Quantity, and Distribution Groundwater uses, including supply and demand, are discussed in Chapter 8 – Water Uses. In this section, we will discuss general groundwater locations, groundwater quality, and any known effects from water uses.

General Condition of Groundwater Resources Because so much of the area is steep with shallow bedrock, the Forest contains few alluvial groundwater basins. This does not meant that there is little groundwater on the Forest, but most groundwater within Forest boundaries is stored in bedrock fracture systems. Figure 13 shows major alluvial fill groundwater basins that contain large volumes of groundwater. Chapter 8 – Water Uses details the locations where groundwater is pumped on the Forest.

Groundwater Quality In areas where groundwater is extracted for municipal use, groundwater quality is well known. The only constituents of concern in drinking water supplies have been naturally occurring uranium and arsenic. The Mammoth Community Water District’s ground water sometimes does not meet existing arsenic standards for drinking water. Their wells are off the Forest, but are within a few miles of the boundary. The Groundwater Ambient Monitoring and Assessment (GAMA) program is run by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Groundwater quality data can be viewed on a map and searched for various constituents at the website http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/. It showed that in Mono County, 47% of all samples tested for arsenic had levels that did not meet the drinking water standard of 10

85 micrograms per liter. In Inyo County, about 15% of samples did not meet the arsenic drinking water standard. Some of those wells sampled were on the Forest. For uranium, it found that 28% of Mono County’s samples for uranium did not meet the drinking water standard, and 5% in Inyo County did not. These are naturally occurring constituents and the only management action that can be taken is treatment if necessary.

The Forest samples water at campground spigots, which are almost all from untreated groundwater sources. In general, water quality is good. In the few instances where bacterial levels were above standards, the source was found to be spigot contamination, not the groundwater itself (Adrienne Dunfee, Assistant Forest Engineer, personal communication 2013).

There was a fuel spill at Mammoth Mountain Ski Area’s garage in 2001, which is within the Forest boundary. Since then, water quality has been sampled for MTBE (a component of fuel), among other constituents, to track effects to groundwater quality. MTBE and levels have gradually improved until both samples taken in 2012 had no detectable MTBE. There was also a fuel spill at the Mammoth Airport in 2003. This is directly adjacent to the Forest, within a few hundred feet. MTBE has been at non-detect levels since 2006 (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/).

Groundwater Quantity Little is known about groundwater quantity on the Forest. Chapter 8 – Water Uses discusses groundwater supply and demand, and what is known about groundwater quantity. It will not be discussed further here.

Stressors

Groundwater Pumping Chapter 8 – Water Uses discusses groundwater supply and demand, and what is known about effects of groundwater pumping on surface and groundwater resources.

Geothermal Production The geothermal power plant near the town of Mammoth Lakes extracts deep, thermal groundwater, and pumps cooled water back into the ground, deeper than the level of extraction. The effects of that deep groundwater pumping on shallow groundwater wells, warm springs, and hot springs in the area have been monitored since 1987. Monitoring has shown that there have been very small measurable effects to spring flow and warm water output in in springs near the Hot Creek Hatchery that may be attributable to the power plant operations. These effects are within the range of variation from annual differences in precipitation. There have been no measuredeffects to shallow groundwater levels, temperatures or chemical composition that has been linked to geothermal production (Bureau of Land Management et al. 2012). The effects of this geothermal plant and any future geothermal plants or wells will continue to be monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey and the operator.

Surface Water Diversions It is unknown whether surface water diversions have affected spring flow or groundwater levels at any site on the Forest, although it is assumed that diversions have reduced

86 groundwater recharge, since they remove water from the stream and place it in a pipe or ditch that does not allow for groundwater recharge along the stream.

Climate Change Reduced snowmelt in response to climatic warming has already reduced regional groundwater recharge in some portions of the Sierra Nevada (Drexler et al. 2013), though data specific to the Eastern Sierra or the Inyo National Forest are not available. Drexler et al. (2013) and Mallek et al. (2012) reported that records for the Inyo National Forest show portions of the Forest have had increased precipitation over the past 50-70 years, but that other portions have had no change or decreased precipitation. Therefore, the existing effect of climate change on groundwater quantity is unknown.

Water Uses Water uses are discussed in depth in Chapter 8. Trends Affecting Water Resources Trends affecting water resources will likely be driven mainly by climate change and changes in human uses of water. The changes in human uses could be related to population growth outside the Forest, changing visitation to the Forest, or could be a response to climate change itself. Trends expected in water supply and demand are discussed in detail in Chapter 8 – Water Uses. They will not be discussed further here. The predicted effects of climate change on water resources will be discussed below.

Reasonably anticipated future patterns of perturbation The expected effects of climate change on precipitation and temperature on the Forest are included in Chapter 3 of this assessment. A summary for water resources is that across the southwestern United States, seasonal and average annual temperatures are predicted to continue to rise throughout this century, and average annual and spring precipitation are projected to decline. This trend projects further decreases in mountain snowpack, earlier snowmelt and peak streamflows, and greater drought severity (Overpeck et al. 2012, Harpold et al. 2012, Cayan et al. 2010). Within the Sierra Nevada, models project a decrease in snowpack of 20-90% over the next century. Flood potential is predicted to increase, as is the proportion of precipitation falling as rain instead of snow (Overpeck et al. 2012, Safford et al. 2012). The effects of these changes on water resources will be discussed below.

Watershed Condition – Forestwide The effects of climate change on watershed condition are difficult to predict. It is possible that with an increase in floods, streambanks would be more susceptible to erosion. This would be particularly true if reduced snowpack and increased temperature led to drier streams and less riparian vegetation. Then, if banks have less protective vegetation, floods could cause more streambank erosion and lead to widening or incision of streams.

Water Quality It is unlikely that there will be dramatic changes in water quality in the future, although climate change and changing Forest uses could affect water quality. It is predicted that stream

87 temperature could increase (Null et al. 2012), which could lead to increased algae, reduced dissolved oxygen, or other effects to aquatic resources. Further, if base flows in streams are reduced, any pollutants will be less diluted and therefore less likely to meet water quality standards.

It is unknown whether changing Forest uses will affect water quality. If more people visit the Forest for recreation purposes, such as OHV use or fishing, there could be slight increases in sediment input into water. However, trends in recent years have been for management actions to focus more on protection of water quality. If that trend continues, there would likely be few changes to water quality with increased recreational visitor use.

Water Flows / Quantity Climate change has the potential to affect surface and groundwater flows. As discussed earlier in this section, climate change has already led to earlier snowmelt, earlier streamflow peaks, and lower summer baseflows. It is predicted that the future climate will continue to cause shorter winters and shorter duration of snowpack. Many models also predict that there will be more severe floods due to higher temperatures and more rapid snowmelt, whether precipitation increases or decreases (Miller et al. 2003). Some models also predicted that drought severity will increase (Coats et al. 2010).

If there are more severe floods that follow severe droughts, erosion of stream channels could increase. Streambank vegetation could decrease in vigor and extent if summer base flows become much lower or some perennial streams become intermittent. Then, when high flows occur, there would be a greater chance of channel scour and possibly widening or gully incision. As explained in the Chapter 8 – Water Uses section of this assessment, these changes are likely to increase the competition for water among different water uses, including human uses and ecosystem uses.

Groundwater If snowpack is reduced, it is likely that less water will infiltrate into the ground and become groundwater. It is predicted that climate change will reduce precipitation across the Forest to varying degrees, and more precipitation will fall as rain rather than snow. (See Chapter 3 Drivers/Stressors for more information about climate change models used in this report.) If this trend does occur, it could reduce groundwater recharge and streams’ summer baseflows in the future (Taylor et al. 2012). This could dry out springs, reduce groundwater levels in meadows, and affect groundwater supplies for Forest as well as municipal uses. Rain is more likely to quickly runoff into surface water than snow, which usually melts slowly and therefore can be absorbed by the soil. It is possible that climate change will reduce groundwater recharge. This could reduce flows of springs, contribute to reduced streamflow during the dry season, and reduce the amount of groundwater available for human uses. Higher temperatures could also increase evapotranspiration, which could lead to less water infiltrating into the soil and rocks and becoming groundwater.

Influence of Resources, Budgets, and Risk Factors on Accomplishment of Plan Objectives The Forest’s existing LRMP contains the following goal for water resources (pg. 69): “National Forest management activities are conducted to maintain or improve soil productivity, to maintain favorable conditions of waterflow, and to comply with water quality goals as specified in state and federal clean water legislation for the sustained benefit of consumptive and non- consumptive users of water.”

The goal does not explain what constitutes a “favorable condition of waterflow”, and whether the flow is to be “favorable” for human uses, ecosystem uses or aesthetic or other uses. Often, there is a conflict between resources in water flow management. When water is diverted, the flow in the creek is reduced, and that is a change for the aquatic ecosystem that may not be favorable. However, the water is needed for human uses, and is being used beneficially. One reason for the creation of the Inyo National Forest was to protect water flows from other users so the City of Los Angeles could divert water for uses in the City. Human water uses often conflict with environmental uses of water, and resolving these conflicts is a difficult and contentious task for the Forest, other regulatory agencies, such as the State, and water users.

Water quality is generally good on the Forest, and where there are known areas of water quality degradation, the Forest has usually prioritized those areas and committed staff and funding to address the issue. Many of the grants that the Forest has received within the past ten years have been specifically to address water quality concerns, particular erosion of stream channels, roads and trails. However, reduced staff and budget do affect the ability of the Forest to address all erosion and sedimentation issues. In particular, the Forest often has an inadequate road and trail maintenance budget to ensure that drainage is sufficient on all roads and trails. Therefore, some roads and trails continue to erode over the years until they are prioritized for maintenance.

Activities that occur in streams, include stream restoration projects, activities that include vegetation removal near water bodies, or activities that disturb more than one acre of ground are subject to regulatory and permitting requirements established by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, and designed to protect water quality. The Forest sometimes delays or avoids proposing restoration actions in or near streams because it does not have the staff or budget to complete permitting requirements for the projects. The permitting process has become more costly and time consuming over the past ten years, and will likely to continue to do so in the future. The Forest has no control over regulatory requirements, but the cost and time involved must be considered when planning stream restoration, fuels treatment, or ground-disturbing projects over more than an acre in size.

Climate change may affect flows or water temperatures in the future, as discussed throughout this chapter.

References

Alpert, H., M. Drew, J. Hatfield, R. Kattelmann and A. Mcinerny. 2012. Inyo-Mono Integrated Regional Water Management Plan. November 14, 2012.

Arthington, A.H., S.E. Bunn, N. L. Poff and R.J. Naiman. 2006. The challenge of providing environmental flow rules to sustain river ecosystems. Ecological Applications, 16(4), pp. 1311-1318.

Basagic, H. 2008. Quantifying Twentieth Century Glacier Change in the Sierra Nevada, California. Masters Thesis.Portland State University.

Benedict, N.B. 1982. Mountain Meadows: Stability and Change. Madrono. 29(3): 148-153.

Bosch, J.M. and J.D. Hewlett, 1982. A review of catchment experimetns to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology 55 (1/4) 3-23.

Brown, A.E., L. Zhang, T.A. McMahon, A.W. Western, R.A. Vertessy. 2005. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alteration in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology 310 (2005) 28-61.

Bureau of Land Management, US Forest Service and Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2012. Casa Diablo IV Geothermal Development Project, Public Draft Joint Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report DOI Control #: DES 12-21.

California, Lohanton Regional Water Quality Control Board. 1995. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lohanton Basin North and South Basins. Lohanton Region, South Lake Tahoe, California.

Carlisle, D.M., D.M. Wolock and M.R. Meador. 2010. Alteration of streamflow magnitudes and potential ecological consequences: a multiregional assessment. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment.

Coats, R., J. Reuter, M. Dettinger, J. Riverson, Z.G. Sahoo, G. Schladow, B. Wolfe and M. Costa-Cabral. 2010. The effects of climate change on Lake Tahoe in the 21st century. Meteorology, hydrology, loading and lake response. Final project report to the Tahoe Science Program and USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. 208 pp.

Derlet, R.W., Carlson, J.R and Noponen, M.N. 2004. Coliform and Pathogenic Bacteria in Sierra Nevada National Forest Wilderness Area Lakes and Streams. Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 15, 245- 249. Derlet, R.W. and Carlson, J.R. 2004. An Analysis of wilderness water in Kings Canyon, Sequoia and Yosemite National Parks for Coliform and Pathogenic Bacteria. Derlet, R.W. and Carlson, J.R. 2003. Incidence of fecal coliforms in fresh water from California wilderness areas. Proceedings of the American Society for Microbiology. Washington, DC: American Society for Microbiology, May 18-22, 2003; 408-409.

Drew, M., H. Alpert, R. Kattelmann and A. McInerny 2011. Inyo-Mono integrated regional water management plan. Prepared on behalf of the Inyo-Mono Regional Water Management Group.

Drexler, J.Z., Knifong, D., Tuil, J., Flint, L, and Flint, A. 2013. Fens as whole-ecosystem gauges of groundwater recharge under climate change. Journal of Hydrology, published online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.056.

Ebasco Environmental, Water Engineering and Technology, and W. Davis and Associates, 1993. Instream flow and habitat restoration investigations for the upper Owens River, Mono County, California. Stream Evaluation Report 93-1. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Ettema, N. and L. Sims. 2010. Stream habitat conditions for California Golden Trout on the Kern Plateau. Inyo National Forest, Lone Pine, California. In the Inyo National Forest’s electronic files.

Fox, K. 1977. Importance of riparian ecosystems: economic considerations. In: Importance, preservation and management of riparian habitat; a symposium; 1977 July 9; Tucson, AZ. General Technical Report RM-43. Fort Collins, CO: Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 1977, pp 19-22.

Frazier J.W., K.B. Roby, J.A. Boberg, K. Kenfield, J.B. Reiner, D.L. Azuma, J.L. Furnish, B.P. Staab, S.L. Grant 2005. Stream Condition Inventory Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region - Ecosystem Conservation Staff. Vallejo, CA. 111 pp.

Germanoski, D.; Miller, J.R. 2004. Basin Sensitivity to channel incision in response to natural and anthropogenic disturbance. In: Chambers, J.C.; Miller, J.R., eds. Great Basin Riparian Ecosystems - Ecology, Management, and Restoration. . Covelo, CA: Island Press: 88-123.

Goehring, B. 2013. Horseshoe Meadow Water Quality Sampling – Summer 2012. Filed electronically in the Inyo National Forest files.

Gore, JA, Layzer JB, Mead J. 2001. Macroinvertebrate instream flow studies after 20 years: a role in stream management and restoration. Regulated Rivers: Research & Management 17: 527–542.

Hemmert, Jennifer E. And Joshua H. Viers. 2010. Sierra Nevada Meadow Hydrology Assessment: 2010 Field Assessment. An Interim Project Report to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (USFS PSW). University of California, Davis. 151 ppd. http://hydra.ucdavis.edu/files/hydra/SNMP_StatusReport_2010_Final.pdf

Herbst, D. B., M.T. Bogan, S.K. Roll and H.D. Safford. 2012. Effects of livestock exclusion on in-stream habitat and benthic invertebrate assemblages in montane streams. Freshwater Biology 57, 204-217.

Herbst, D.B and E.L. Silldorff. 2009. Development of a benthic macroinvertebrate index of biological integrity (IBI) for stream assessments in the Eastern Sierra Nevada of California. Final Report. Accessed on the website http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/swamp/docs/east_sierra_rpt.pdf on August 19, 2013.

Inyo National Forest. 2007. Integrated Weed Eradication and Control on the Inyo National Forest. Environmental Assessment. August 2007.

Inyo National Forest. 2005. Trail and Commercial Pack Stock Management in the Ansel Adams and John Muir Wildernesses. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. R5-MB-009. December 2005.

Jensen, Nicholas J. and Joshua H. Viers. 2011. Sierra Nevada Meadow Hydrology Assessment: 2011 Field Assessment. An Interim Project Report to the USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (USFS PSW). University of California, Davis. 667 ppd. http://hydra.ucdavis.edu/files/hydra/SNMP_StatusReport_2011_Final.pdf

Kauffman and Krueger 1984. Livestock impacts on riparian ecosystesm and streamside management considerations: a review. Journal of Range Mangement, 27, 430-438.

Kondolf, G.M. 1993. Lag in stream channel adjustment to livestock exclosure, White Mountains, California. Restoration Ecology, 4, 226-230

LADWP, 2011. Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 2011 Drinking Water Quality Report. Accessed online at https://www.ladwp.com/ladwp/faces/wcnav_externalId/a-w-anual-wqualty- rprt?_adf.ctrl-state=lp4s5shra_4&_afrLoop=325378748808000.

LRWQCB, 1995a. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region. Board Order No. 6- 95-26 WDED NO. 6B268070001. Updated waste discharge requirements for Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mono County.

LRWQCB, 1995b. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region. Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, North And South Basins.

LRWQCB, 1995c. Updated waste discharge requirements for Mammoth Mountain Ski Area, Mono County. Board Order No. 6-95-26. WDID No. 6B268070001. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region.

Loheide, S.P.; Deitchman, R.S.; Cooper, D.J.; Wolf, E.C.; Hammersmark, C.T.; Lundquist, J.D. 2009. A framework for understanding the hydroecology of impacted wet meadows in the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Ranges, California, USA. Hydrogeology Journal. 17(1): 229-246.

Long, J, K. Pope and K. Matthews. 2013. Wet Meadows. Chapter 6.3 in Long, Jonathan W.; Quinn- Davidson, Lenya, and Skinner, Carl N., tech. editors. Science Synthesis to support Forest Plan Revision in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascades. Draft Final Report. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 504 p. http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/reports/psw_sciencesynthesis2013/.

Melack, J.M., and L. Lesack, 1982. Long Valley reservoir research program, progress report 1. prepared for Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (cited by Jellison and Dawson, 2003).

Micheli, E.R and J.W. Kirchner, 2002. Effects of wet meadow riparian vegetation on streambank erosion. 2. Measurements of vegetated bank strength and consequences for failure mechanics. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 27, 687-697.

Miller, N.L., K.E. Bashford and E. Strem. 2003. Potential impacts of climate change on California hydrology. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39: 771-784.

Null, S., J.H. Viers, M. Deas, S. Tanaka, J.F. Mount. Stream temperature sensitivity to climate warming in California’s Sierra Navada: impacts to coldwater habitat. Climate Change. p. 1-22.

Prichard, D., J. Anderson, C. Correll, J.Fogg, K. Gebhardt, R. Krapf, S. Leonard, B. Mitchell and J. Staats. Riparian area management: A user guide to assessing proper functioning condition and the supporting science for lotic areas. TR 1737-15 1998. U.S. Department of the Interior – Bureau of Land Management. Stephens, S.J., C. McGuire, and L. Sims. 2003. Conservation assessment and strategy for the California Golden Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss aguabonita), Tulare County, California.

Roche, L.M., L. Kromschroeder, E.A. Atwill, R.A. Dahlgren, K.W. Tate. 2013. Water quality associated with cattle grazing and recreation on National Forest lands. PLOS ONE. Volume 8, Issue 6.

Rush, F.E. and T.L. Katzer, 1973. Water Resources – Reconnaissance Series Report 58: Water resources appraisal of Fish Lake Valley, Nevada and California. State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. Division of Water Resources.

Schindler, D.E., R.A. Knapp, and P.R. Leavitt. 2001. Alteration of nutrient cycles and algal production resulting from fish introductions into mountain lakes. Ecosystems 4: 308-321.

Sickman, J.O., J.M. Melack, D.W. Clow. 2003. Evidence for nutrient enrichment of high-elevation lakes in the Sierra Nevada, California. Limnol. Oceanographer. 48(5), 1885-1892.

Stewart, I.T., D.R. Cayan and M.D. Dettinger. Changes in snowmelt runoff timing in Western North America under ‘business and usual’ climate change scenario. Climate Change 62: 217-232, 2004.

Stoddard, J.L and J.O. Sickman. 2002. Episodic acidification of lakes in the Sierra Nevada. Final Report. California Air Resources Board Project #A132-048.

Suk T, Sorenson S, Dileanis P: The relation between human presence and occurrence of Giardia cysts in streams in the Sierra Nevada, California. J Freshwater Ecology 1987;4(1):71-75

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board), 1994. Mono Lake Basin Water Right Decision 1631. Decision and order amending water right licenses to establish fishery protection flows in streams tributary to mono Lake and to protect public trust resources at Mono Lake and in the Mono Basin.

Wildermuth Environmental, Inc. 2009. Mammoth Basin Groundwater Model Report: Final Report. Prepared for Mammoth Community Water District. September 2009. http://www.mcwd.dst.ca.us/ProjectsReports/GWMP/2009%20Mammoth%20Basin%20GW%20Modelin g%20Report_Final.pdf

Yarnell, S.; Lind, A.; Mount, J. 2012. Dynamic flow modeling of riverine amphibian habitat with application to regulated flow management. River Research and Applications 28: 177-191.