Riparian Vegetation Inventory
Inyo/Los Angeles Cooperative Study

COOPERATIVE STUDY PROPOSAL

The Inyo/Los Angeles Standing Committee agreed at its March 23, 2000,
meeting that this study will be conducted by a consultant
selected jointly by Inyo County and LADWP.

 

Project Title:

INVENTORY AND CLASSIFICATION OF RIPARIAN VEGETATION IN THE OWENS VALLEY FOR USE IN FUTURE MONITORING

Principal Investigators:

Consultant(s) - to be selected
Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power - Brian Tillemans
Inyo County Water Dept. - Sally Manning

Purpose:

The long term water agreement commits Inyo County and Los Angeles Dept. of Water and Power (LADWP) to monitor and manage all vegetation in the Owens Valley, including riparian (AType D@) vegetation. The Green Book calls for a further study to: ARefine the present methodology and investigate alternative methods to improve monitoring of riparian and marshland vegetation.@ To achieve the Green Book objective, the study should consist of the following: define the riparian areas, inventory them, devise a riparian classification scheme and map of riparian areas, and recommend an appropriate monitoring plan to detect significant riparian vegetation changes.

Background:

LADWP and Inyo County realize the importance of riparian and wetland areas to the health, productivity, and maintenance of the watershed (Belsky et al 1999; Clary et al 1996; Cylinder et al 1995; Frasier et al 1998; Kondolf 1994), for their wildlife values (Ellis 1995), for their intrinsic biodiversity (Walford and Baker 1995; Pollock et al 1998), and for maintaining good water quality.

The agreement defines Type D as being Acomprised of riparian/marshland vegetation communities with evapotranspiration greater than precipitation. The communities comprising this classification exist because of high groundwater conditions, natural surface water drainage, and/or surface water management practices in the area, i.e., conveyance facilities, wet year spreading, etc.@ The vegetation management maps identified approximately 5,700 acres of Type D vegetation. However, not all riparian communities were classified as Type D; for example, some areas mapped as Mojave Riparian Forest (about 800 acres) were designated as Type E (irrigated). Original transect data for the Owens Valley riparian areas during the 1984-87 vegetation inventory are meager or non-existent. It is currently unclear how plant communities were assigned within Type D, because these communities were not included in the analysis of Owens Valley vegetation communities due to insufficient available data (Manning 1997). In order to appropriately manage Type D vegetation, accurate locations must be identified, ecological conditions need to be adequately described, and management differences between some Type D and E areas need to be clarified.

The Green Book identifies AType D Vegetation Monitoring Techniques@ as a Further Study. The Green Book also states that the current Type D vegetation monitoring program consists of monthly field visits during the field season for Avisual monitoring@ and bi-monthly visits during the remainder of the year. This Type D monitoring was never implemented. Instead,

in 1996 the Technical Group initiated a riparian monitoring program at eleven sites employing commonly-used techniques to annually assess physical and vegetative conditions. This program was to be expanded once the agreement was fully implemented, but a major impediment to expansion is the lack of adequate baseline information on riparian vegetation. Without the adequate baseline, it is impossible to monitor changes and evaluate the results for compliance with the goals of the long term water agreement. The lack of sufficient baseline data also makes it difficult to properly locate monitoring sites that would be indicative of the range of conditions and vegetation types that need to be managed.

Significant strides have been made in techniques for inventorying and classifying wetland and riparian areas over the last decade (Ferren et al 1996). The classification systems most appropriate for riparian areas go beyond floristics and incorporate landforms, soils, hydrology, and climate. For examples closest to the Owens Valley, the national forests in eastern California and Nevada have collected and analyzed data on their riparian areas and have developed classification systems (Manning and Padgett 1995; Weixelman et al 1996). These inventories have then been used for long-term management of these valuable systems (Weixelman et al 1997).

Procedures:

It is recommended that consultants be sought to carry out the riparian cooperative study via the RFP process. Successful potential candidates should be familiar with Eastern Sierra climate and vegetation. In addition, they must have expertise in geomorphology, hydrology, soils, and statistics. Final products should include professional quality maps and a computerized data base. Although this project could be accomplished using the combined expertise of personnel at both LADWP and within Inyo County, time constraints associated with numerous other obligations would preclude the project from being completed in the near future. Even with consultants, it is expected that this study would span at least two field seasons and take approximately two years to complete.

The following tasks would be requested of the consultant:

(1) Examine the 1984-87 vegetation data base to compile a preliminary map of Type D Ariparian@ or Amarshland@ vegetation

(2) Inventory vegetation and pertinent ecological features of the areas identified as riparian

(3) Classify the riparian areas based on inventory data and apply mulitvariate statistical methods to construct a classification of riparian community types based on the field data.

(4) Produce an attributed map of riparian areas that is based on the classification

(5) Recommend a monitoring program to detect future changes in riparian vegetation when compared with baseline data generated from this study

 

Several steps are anticipated to carry out this study. First, the consultants would analyze the vegetation data base, aerial photographs or other imagery, existing field data, soils data, hydrologic data and other information as necessary to develop a list of areas to be inventoried. Next, a sampling strategy would be decided. During the first field season, the primary data would be collected. At the end of the field season, the data would be analyzed to develop a classification system. This classification would subsequently be field tested and refined during the next field season and a map produced. The final product would include the map, all data and results and a recommended monitoring program. The Technical Group would use the final report to develop a monitoring protocol for riparian and marshland areas that would be implemented at the appropriate time intervals identified in the monitoring plan.

 

 

Schedule:

 

The following is a proposed schedule for this cooperative study.

2000

2001

2002

TASK

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

A

M

J

J

A

S

O

N

D

J

F

M

RFQs

develop RFP

proposal due

consultant selection

begin work

preliminary report

continue work

final report/monitoring plan

References Cited:

Belsky, A. J., A. Matzke, and S. Uselman. 1999. Survey of livestock influences on stream and riparian ecosystems in the western United States. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation. 54(1): 419-431.

Clary, W.P., N. L. Shaw, J. G. Dudley, V. A. Saab, J. W. Kinney, and L. C. Smithman. 1996. Response of a depleted sagebrush steppe riparian system to grazing control and woody plantings. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Research Paper 492(1), 1.

Cylinder, Paul D., Kenneth M. Bogdan, Ellyn M. Davis, and Albert I. Herson. 1995. Wetlands regulation: A complete guide to federal and California programs. Solano Press, Point Arena, California. 363 p.

Ellis, L. M. 1995. Bird use of saltcedar and cottonwood vegetation in the Middle Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, USA. Journal of Arid Environments 30(3): 339-349.

Ferren, Wayne R., Jr., Peggy L. Fiedler, Robert A. Leidy, Kevin D. Lafferty, and Leal A. K. Mertes. 1996. Wetlands of California II. Classification and description of wetlands of the southern California coast and coastal watersheds. Madrono. 43(1): 125-182.

Frasier, G. W., M. J. Trlica, W. C. Leininger, R. A. Pearce, and A. Fernald. 1998. Runoff from simulated rainfall in 2 montane riparian communities. Journal of Range Management 51(3): 315-322.

Kondolf, G. M. 1994. Livestock grazing and habitat for a threatened species - land-use decisions under scientific uncertainty in the White Mountains, California, USA. Environmental Management 18(4): 501-509.

Manning, M.E. and W.G. Padgett. 1995. Riparian community type classification for the Humboldt and Toiyabe National Forests, Nevada and eastern California, R4-Ecol-95-01. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Ecology and Classification Program, Odgen, Utah; 306p.

Manning, Sara J. 1997. Plant communities of LADWP land in the Owens Valley: An exploratory analysis of baseline conditions. Inyo County Water Department report. 160 pp.

Pollock, M. M., R. J. Naiman, and T. A. Hanley. 1998. Plant species richness in riparian wetlands - A test of biodiversity theory. Ecology 79(1): 94-105.

Walford, G. M., and W. L. Baker. 1995. Classification of the riparian vegetation along a 6-km reach of the Animas river, southtwestern Colorado. Great Basin Naturalist 55(4): 287-303.

Weixelman, Dave A., Desiderio C. Zamudio and Karen A. Zamudio. 1996. Central Nevada riparian field guide, R4-Ecol-96-01. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Region, Sparks, Nevada.

Weixelman, Dave A., Desiderio C. Zamudio, Karen A. Zamudio, and Robin J. Tausch. 1997. Classifying ecological types and evaluating site degradation. Journal of Range Management. 50(3): 315-321.

Addendum to Cooperative Study Proposal February 16, 2000

Inventory and Classification of Riparian Vegetation in the Owens Valley
for use in Future Monitoring

The following are proposed guidelines for developing the RFP. These resulted from discussions between the two PI=s and consultants from Ecosystem Sciences. They are provided to help clarify the level of effort (scale of mapping, number of plots, etc.) Inyo and DWP expect the prospective consultants to undertake. These items will be further developed during writing of the RFP and either will be stated in the RFP or used in evaluating the proposals received. Roughly, the guidelines are as follows:

[ The consultants are expected to collect data from approximately 100 50m x 50m plots. If plots are smaller, more will be done, if larger, we will evaluate the sub sampling strategy to determine if sufficient area can be covered.

[ Classification is expected to be at the series (or Aalliance@) level. It is expected that 12-20 series will be defined. The classification will be hierarchical or amenable to an existing hierarchical system.

[ Sampling plots will be located using GPS (locations will be differentially corrected and imported into ArcView), and all raw data sheets will be delivered to the Technical Group. Photographs of each plot will be taken and delivered.

[ The Technical Group ultimately desires to have a riparian classification scheme that can be used on all LADWP lands in the Owens Valley (Inyo County).

[ The Technical Group will designate priority areas for monitoring. The monitoring program for Type D areas will consist of different monitoring level efforts depending on management considerations. At minimum, recommendations for monitoring should include more intensive monitoring (i.e., annual) at sites potentially affected by pumping (including any suitable controls) and less frequent periodic monitoring of conditions in areas not expected to be subject to annual management changes.

[ It is desirable that the consultant incorporate methods for using hydrologic data into long term monitoring (i.e., how to incorporate stream flow data, test hole data, or soil moisture measurements, etc.)

Inyo/Los Angeles Cooperative Studies