Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 121
5
Shoreline and Upland Systems
INTRODUCTION
The shoreline and upland systems are integral parts of
the Mono Basin. If the level of Mono Lake rises or falls,
the shoreline will be inundated or exposed, and the shore-
line system will be altered. Many of these alterations in
the shoreline system are controlled by hydrologic changes
in the nearshore groundwater, as discussed in chapter 2.
Except for the streams themselves and the riparian flora
and fauna, the upland system will not generally be affected
by changes in lake level. A description of the upland sys-
tem is nevertheless necessary for an overall understanding
of the basin.
This chapter describes the physical components of the
shoreline and upland systems--topography, soils, and natural
events affecting the systems--as well as the biotic com-
ponents--vegetation and wildlife. The interface between
the land and the air, controlling aerosol production from
the alkali flats, and the interface between the land and the
water, controlling the tufa formations and shoreline ero-
sion, are also discussed.
PHYSICAL COMPONENTS
Topography
The Mono Basin lies on the border of two major physio-
graphic provinces--the Sierra Nevada and the Great Basin--
121
OCR for page 122
122
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
and is part of both. The first, and still one of the best,
descriptions of the Mono Basin was that of I. C. Russell
(1889~. The basin includes a variety of features of great
interest to geologists, climatologists, and geographers--vol-
canos, fault scares, glacial cirques and moraines, tufa for-
mations, sand dunes, perennial streams, and several lakes.
The watershed extends to the crest of the Sierra and
includes Mt. Lyell, Koip Peak, Mt. Dana, and Mt. Conness.
The elevations within the basin range from 13,000 ft to
about 6,380 ft. the current level of Mono Lake. The geo-
morphology of the area is closely related to the geology
Studies of the stratigraphy re-
vea~ ~ ~ mayor glacial advances and various layers of glacial
moraines, volcanic pumice and ash, and erosional sediments
from streams. Among the terrain features are several of
special importance for their scientific interest and scenic
value, including Bloody Canyon (a classic example of Sier-
ran glaciation), the Mt. Dana glacier, the Mono Craters,
Paoha Island, and Negit Island.
Topographic features in the regions surrounding the
Mono Basin include the Inyo Craters, Long Valley, Glass
Mountain, the Bodie Hills, Sweetwater Mountain, and the
White Mountains (Figure 5.1~. Adjoining drainages are the
San Joaquin, Tuolumne, and Merced rivers on the western
slope of the Sierra, the Walker River to the north, and the
Owens River to the south.
Topographic maps and aerial photographs available for
the Mono Basin are listed in the bibliography.
and the paleoclimatology.
~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ .
Soils
Gallegos (1986) has provided a soils map for the Mono
Basin National Forest Scenic Area. He recognized 53 map-
ping units within the scenic area, with the bulk of the
soils belonging to the Entiso] order. A few Mollisols and
Aridisols were also encountered. Entisols are defined as
soils that lack pedogenic horizons except for a slight dark-
ening of the surface layer by organic matter. Mollisols are
well-developed soils having a surface layer that is heavily
melanized and deep (at least 25 cm deep or one-third of
the combined depth of the A- and B-horizons). The
OCR for page 123
Shoreline and Upland Systems
5,~A=~ /
I /'
~Twin L.h.s ~
%
~ MATTERHORN ~ t
``PEAK 1~'ONWAY SUP ONION
~~ ~~ ~ \
~' ret Point,' MONO LAKE ~
MT, WARREN And Gig )
t ·7 Go__
~~ 2 33 MONO DO 4E ~ ~~ Probe lily
MT. CONNESS`` ·
- `, L" Vlning a\
TIOCA PASS Y ~ ~
It__. ~ Err. DAN 84; O \
,` ~ Crant
KOIP PK ~ ,, Lay FEZ
`, AL he {a BALD &IT CLlA1,5S3 T
MT LYELL J
13,15B ~,’> \ \
:
%\ tt11,034
~~) ~ ~~ ~Ntb Lop
J c~vsN
COWTRACK MT `
8875
123
'it ~
'of ~
"A
~ MEND - Y
3,145
°~ Solon ~~ 'N
\~_/ 13,055 *'I
\ ~
\ %~
Chummy
I WHITE MrN
\ 14,_
14 242
FIGURE 5.1 Topographic and other features of area sur-
rounding Mono Lake.
surface layer has a soft, crumbly structure when dry and
has calcium as the dominant cation on the colloidal
exchange particles. Aridisols have at least one pedogenic
horizon, but never have water continuously available for
plant growth for as much as 90 days when soil tempera-
tures are above 5.0°C.
As Gallegos (1986) has noted, the soils of the scenic
area have developed from two primary parent materials
(Figure 5.2~. Soils of areas to the west, southwest, and
northwest of Mono Lake are derived principally from the
granitic core of the Sierra and from metasedimentary rocks
that were uplifted with the Sierra and are now exposed as
scattered fragments along the crests and sides of the
mountain range. These soils are usually coarse textured
and bear variable amounts of rock fragments in the profile.
OCR for page 124
124
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
Lake sediments or
ash or allavlum deposits
with high water tables
and alkaline reaction
Ash cinders or volcanic
craters Solls neutral
or silghtly to strongly
acidic
1
Reeldual or transported
soil derived form
granite and metals
sedimentary rocks
Sons acidic to
circumneutral
FIGURE 5.2
Area.
MONO LAKE
0 1 2 3
SCALE IN MILES
Soils of Mono Basin National Forest Scenic
The rest of the soils of the scenic area are derived from
either rhyolitic ash or cinder deposits or from heteroge-
neous lake sediments. Black Point and Negit Island are
both of volcanic origin, but the material is darker (basalt)
anc chemically distinct from the rhyolitic Mono Craters.
The rhyolitic deposits are young, highly permeable to
water, and extremely infertile. The lake sediments are, of
OCR for page 125
Shoreline and Upland Systems
125
course, of mixed origin. Since the lake has progressively
receded in its undrained basin, accumulated salts impreg-
nate its younger sediments.
Gentle slopes along the north and east shores of the
lake result in large exposures of saline lake sediments and
high water tables as the lake recedes. As a consequence,
soils along those shores differ strongly from soils of the
western and southern shores, where the landscape rises
more steeply from the water's edge. In the latter areas,
acidic soils occur within a few hundred meters of the high-
ly alkaline, damp shorelines adjacent to the lake. In con-
trast, sediments that are strongly influenced by the lake
with respect to both chemistry and water table often ex-
tend for a kilometer or more (sometimes up to 4 km) away
from the current shoreline along the north and east shores.
Soil salinity problems appear to be exacerbated along these
shores by water draining from the Bodie Hills via Wilson
Creek. That water becomes highly saline and alkaline as it
percolates through the lake sediments.
· .
l hUS at a large
number ot sites, water rises to the soil surface by capil-
larity and leaves behind its load of soluble salts as it eva-
porates.
The commonest soils on the mountainous west end of
the scenic area are Typic Xerorthents (Table 5. 1~. These
are Entisols formed in areas having moist winters and dry
summers. The combining term ortho- conveys the idea of
genuine or true. -~ ~~- -~ :~ := _:
Entisol, an orthent soil is a true or genuine Entisol. The
- tiara the Cllt-t-1Y _~.nt ~~.Rl~nOtes an
extensive morainal deposits in the mountains there support
Typic Cryorthents and Typic Cryoborolls. The cryo- prefix
designates soils that have a mean annual temperature at 50
cm of over 0° but less than S.0°C. Rhyolitic outcrops have
developed Typic Haploxerolls. Soils ending in -oil are
~ -I ~ -- The
moraines and alluvial fans at the mouth of Lundy Canyon
support Xeric Torripsamment, Durorthidic Xeric Torripsam-
ment, and Typic Xerorthent soils.
The ash and cinder plains along both east and west
sides of the Mono Craters to the south of the lake have
developed Dystric Xerorthent, Typic Xeropsamments, Xeric
Torripsamments, and Xeric Torriorthent soils (Table 5. 1~.
Dystric soils are dystrophic or infertile due to displacement
Mollisols or soils with deep, ctar~-co~orea ep~pec~ons.
OCR for page 126
126
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
TABLE 5.1 The Major Soil Subgroups Encountered on Each
of the Three Major Parent Material Types (Figure 5.1 )
Around Mono Lake
Granite- Rhyolitic Lake and Alluvial
metasedimentary Ash Sediments
Typic Xerorthents
Typic Cryorthants
Typic Cryoborolls
Typic Haploxerolls
Xeric Torripsamments
Durorthidic Xeric
Torripsamments
Typic Xerorthents
Xeric Torripsamments
Xeric Torriorthents
Typic Xeropsamments
Dystric Xerorthents
NOTE: Technical names are used for the soil subgroups listed, since they convey
information concerning root zone temperature and seasonal water availability,
profile development, presence of a water table within the soil profile, and
texture of parent material. See Gallegos (1986) for location of the various
soils in the landscape.
Haplaquents
Durorthidic Xeric
Torripsamments
Durorthidic Xeric
Torriorthents
Aeric Haplaquents
Typic Psammaquents
Typic Haplaquents
Typic Xerorthents
Xeric Torripsamments
Xeric Torriorthents
Xerollic Camborthids
of biologically essential cations by hydrogen. Such soils
are strongly acidic in reaction. Xeric Torripsamments are
the most widespread soils in the area, but Xeric Torrior-
thents and Typic Xeropsamments are also widespread.
The commonest soils on the north and east shores of
Mono Lake are Haplaquents, Durorthidic Xeric Torripsam-
ments, Durorthidic Xeric Torriorthents, Aeric Haplaquents,
Typic Psammaquents, and Typic Haplaquents (Table 5. 1~.
Aquents are Entisols in which a water table occurs in com-
bination with conditions of poor soil aeration. The prefix
hapla- carries the meaning of simple or minimal h~ri7.nn
Durorthidic soils have a weakly cemented
silicon pan within the surface meter. Black Point supports
Xeric Torripsamments and Typic Xerorthent soils. The
major upland soil on Paoha Island is a Xeric Torriorthent.
The principal upland soil on Negit Island is mapped as a
Xerollic Camborthid. Orthids are Aridisols that do not
have a high clay or a high sodium horizon. Camborthids
have an altered (cambic) subsurface horizon that is
development. ~
.. .
OCR for page 127
Shoreline and Upland Systems
127
generally redder or browner than the surface horizon.
These soils are circumneutral to strongly alkaline in reac-
tion. Levels of soluble salts are often so high in some of
these soils that all plant life is excluded.
The low fertility of upland soils to the south and west
of the lake is striking when parameters for those soils
taken in connection with this report are compared with
soils from comparable elevations and vegetation types in
the Bonneville Basin of western Utah (Table 5.2~. The data
demonstrate that for most variables, the soils derived from
rhyolitic ash contain significantly smaller amounts of ele-
ments essential for biological systems than those formed
from granitic and metasedimentary parent materials. Both
of those Mono Basin parent materials produce soils that are
highly impoverished in phosphorus and exchangeable bases
relative to the common soils of uplands in the Bonneville
Basin (Table 5.2~.
Recent experimental plantings of container-grown stock
of salt-tolerant native shrubs (Atriplex canescens and Sar-
cobatus vermiculatus) on the sandy beaches of the north
shore suggest that the erosive action of windblown sand
and adverse soil chemistry combine to make revegetation
with shrubs an unlikely means of stabilizing such an area
(Romney et al., 1986~. Direct seeding of grasses and
shrubs also shows little promise, but hand plantings of
saltgrass (DistichZis spicata) rhizomes are often successful
on the less harsh portions of the north shore (Romney et
al., 1986~.
Natural Events
Hydrogeomorphic Events
Hydrogeomorphic events discussed here include avalan-
ches and erosion. The steep eastern escarpment of the
Sierra is prone to large, destructive avalanches during and
following periods of prolonged snowfall. Particularly af-
fected are the canyons, in which snow sliding downward
from the higher slopes is funneled into a narrow valley,
thus deepening the mass and increasing its momentum.
Avalanches are common in winters when dry, windy periods
between major storms create an icy or wind-crusted snow
OCR for page 128
? ~
B> a eDe ~
E _
B E
~C
.= 2- [° Z
,o ~ O E ~
E ° a ~ ~ r ~ -, =' ,
O ~ Ct U. CQ
~ =-"
~ ~ a =- '
-
00 O'
O
\0
-
-
'30
_ _
_ _
(~ O~
_ _
_ ~ _
°
_
_ _
~ 00 ~
0 ^0
_ _
_ _
_
- 0
_ _
00 ~
-
O ~
_ ~ _ ~.
_ ,~,
_ _
-
~ ~ ,,0 ~,.
_ _
e=5 E c, E
o ~ ° _
Y ~0 ~ ._ _ ~~ o~ C
_ _ B y ~ B c
~ td .- ~ =
~ ~ C ~,g
2_ ", ~ is
BE
.' E ~ . ~ E, E a~
o
~o
~o
cr~
~o '
l
-
-
~o ~
~ o
-
-
~ oo
~ o
-
o
J
. - ~ ~
~o 3 m
.~ ~ ~ ~
cs
~ ~ m° ~
128
ce ,
c ~ 0
~ ~ ~ 3
.~.C ~ ~
. - 3 ~ 4,
~ , ~
~.S 4) ~
3 en en
~,o.C CL
~c oo~ ~
3 C e4
,~ 4)
~ ~ ~ t~O
.~._ 3 ~
I . -
0._.>
=._ C) ~
co _ oo
.O ·" ·` ~
~ ce O ~
~ c m
0 ~ 0
c
4D 0 0 u'
~V ~ ~ cd
3 ~ 0 cf.
c'' ~ N 4,)
~
~ C's O
as ce ~ ~
~ O ~ O
4) C,) ~ _ _
~ ~ ~ _
eS
C 5 6)
O ~ ~ O ~
4, oo 3 c~
.~ .
~ '3 OO ~o
ce 5: ~ ~ .>
~ ~ c~
Z ~ ~ ~ ~
~ c~
OCR for page 129
Shoreline and Upland Systems
129
surface on which the new snow slides easily. Melt-freeze
metamorphism is also important in the formation of icy
surfaces.
The most widespread and destructive avalanches in re-
cent years occurred throughout the Sierra in February
1986. Damage to vegetation was extensive over a wide
range of elevation from mountain hemlock and lodgepole
pines near Tioga Pass to aspen and pinyon pines near Mono
Lake. Widespread avalanches also occurred in 1921, 1952,
1969, and 1982.
Meteorologic events determine the frequency and sever-
ity of erosion episodes along the lakeshore, on lands ex-
posed by the receding lake, and in the steep canyons. As
noted below in the section on the land-water interface,
strong winds cause lake waves that alter the shoreline and
batter nearshore tufa formations. Such winds also blow
sand into shifting dunes and transport fine alkali dust,
salts, and other particulates to altitudes up to several
thousand feet and for distances of tens to hundreds of
miles. The extent of wind erosion on surrounding hills and
mountain uplands depends in large measure on whether ri-
parian vegetation has been previously destroyed by fire or,
less commonly, by overgrazing. Other forms of erosion
that affect landforms, particularly streambed and ephemeral
stream channel erosion, are associated with high-intensity
rainfall and associated flash floods. Such episodes occur
most frequently from midsummer to early fall. A particu-
larly memorable event was experienced on Post Office
Creek in early August 1955. Heavy thunderstorm rains
caused a flash flood that severely damaged Tioga Lodge
and washed about 20 automobiles into Mono Lake; no one
was killed or injured (H. Klieforth, personal communica-
tion).
F.
Ire
In an environment such as that of the Mono Basin,
where summer precipitation is scanty and unpredictable,
wildfires in the natural vegetation are common. Both low-
altitude photographs and space satellite images (Ustin et
al., 1986) show conspicuous fire scars in the shrublands and
OCR for page 130
130
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
forests of the general area. Woody-stem aging techniques
and government records reveal that fires have burned re-
peatedly throughout at least the past century in the Mono
Basin. Historic records demonstrate that the fires result
from both natural causes ("dry" lightning) and direct human
intervention. Fires are known to have swept over all veg-
etative types in the basin, including marshes, brushlands,
woodlands, and forests.
Because of broken terrain and locally sparse plant
cover, few individual fires have burned over large areas.
Within the scenic area, there are known scars of over 40
fires that burned in years ranging from before 1875 to
1986, but no fire larger than 100 acres is apparent. Most
fires burn fewer than 10 acres before natural factors or
direct intervention by fire-control teams limits their
spread.
Since plants differ in their ability to regrow after fire,
fires in woody vegetation in particular alter the composi-
tion of the plant cover for decades after the actual pas-
sage of the blaze. Forest trees such as the quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloid~es) sprout profusely after fire, while
other associated trees (e.g., Abies concolor and Pinus jef-
freyi) are killed by crown fires. At lower elevations or on
drier slopes, the major species of the pinyon-juniper wood-
lands are severely affected by crown fires. Pines mono-
phyIla, Juniperus osteosperma, Cercocarpus ledifolitcs, and
Artemisia tridentata all fail to sprout after fire, and soils
are stabilized solely by herbaceous species (which are often
sparse in these woodlands) for many years after a fire.
In the upland shrublands of the pumice flats south of
Mono Lake, neither of the dominant shrubs (Artemisia tri-
d~entata and Purshia trid~entata) sprout after fire. As a
result, fire scars remain sparsely vegetated for many years
on such sites. Grasses and perennial herbs perform poorly
on these sites, and adapted annual plants are small and
short-lived.
Sprouting shrubs and herbs are the rule on sites nearer
the lake, where water tables are near the surface and soils
are often at least somewhat saline. The grasses Distichlis
spicata and Spartina gracilis sprout vigorously after fire, as
do associated shrubs such as Chrysothamnus nauseosus,
OCR for page 131
Shoreline and Upland Systems
131
Salix exigua, Sarcobatus vermiculatus, and Shepherdia ar-
gentea.
Since the soils on upland sites in the Mono Basin are
generally coarse and well drained, fires on those soils rare-
ly result in erosion by running water. Infiltration rates
are rapid enough to preclude the accumulation of surface
rivulets that might result in gully formation. On fine-
textured sands, fires may permit enough wind action to
produce small mounds before natural recovery of the
vegetation cover is adequate to prevent soil movement.
Fires on the steeper slopes of the Sierra portion of the
scenic area do sometimes result in significant erosion by
water. The result may be gentle sheet erosion without the
formation of rills or gullies, but topsoil with its content of
biologically essential elements does creep slowly downslope.
In a few cases, torrential rains or heavy snowpacks have
accumulated on fire-denuded slopes and released heavy
flows that have produced gullies and moved sediments into
stream channels and even into the lake itself. Field obser-
vations made while conducting this study suggest that such
erosional events in connection with wildfires are not com-
mon even along the Sierra front. Of 12 historic wildfire
sites examined by a member of the committee, K. T.
Harper, only one showed any evidence of significant soil
loss from surface runoff. At that site, organic matter in
the surface 15 cm of soil was only about 20 percent less
than that of adjacent areas that were unaffected by fire.
It would thus appear that upland fires produce few ero-
sional events that would significantly affect Mono Lake
chemistry directly.
Another adverse effect of fire on steep, wooded slopes
along the Sierra face is enhanced frequency of snow ava-
lanches. In some situations, fires appear to have opened
avalanche tracks that have not fully healed in a century.
Avalanches are not only hazardous to humans, but they
also redistribute natural precipitation and alter local runoff
of surface water.
While fire is not a serious threat to vegetation near the
lake, there are other areas within the Mono Basin where
fire could damage the ecosystem. These areas include the
lower hills covered by mature sage and bitterbrush stands,
OCR for page 168
168
25
20
g 15
a
10
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
35 .
MILES
33-
400
700
850
FIGURE 5.6 Vertical cross section of Sierra lee wave
showing air flow pattern and cloud forms (Holmboe and
Klieforth, 1957~.
Out that the worst dust storms in Owens Valley were
associated with northerly winds aligned with the axis of
the valley (parallel to the Sierra), and that such storms
transport significant quantities of dust for over 100 mi. In
both Owens and Mono basins, strong southerly winds also
cause major dust storms. Saint-Amand et al. describe dif-
ferences between dust episodes in the two basins and dis-
cuss possible treatments to alleviate dust problems.
Consequences of Wind Storms
Most of the content of the windborne material is inor-
ganic particulates of geologic origin--sand, salts, and other
compounds. These materials when airborne affect visibility
and air quality. Larger particulates transported along or
OCR for page 169
Shoreline and UplandF Systems
EARLY MORNING
(
4~r Lightning ~
(~9~.'r A
EARLY TO MID-AFTERNOON (W or E)
169
_
·:
MID-MORNING _
(Over Mountalns)
LATE MORNING
_. ~. ~ --; ~~ -
h - ~~~~
~g <~ ~ `~ Dark ~ Acre. .~- Ace.. ~~ ~
(~-
LATE AFTERNOON OR
EARLY EVENING (E)
EVENING (E)
FIGURE 5.7 Typical diurnal sequence of cloud development
and precipitation during summer monsoon season (Powell
and Kileforth, in press).
near the surface of the ground affect vegetation, tufa for-
mations, wildlife, and human activities. The reports by
Cahill and Gill (1987) and Saint-Amand et al. (1986) discuss
the composition of airborne particulates and their relation
to human respiratory problems. The stabilization of sand
dunes, playas, exposed lands, and other erosion-prone ter-
rain has been addressed recently by various groups with
consideration of experimental plantings, placement of drift
fences, and other treatment. Much more research is
needed on all of these problems.
It should be noted that the dust problems of Owens
Basin are greater and different in kind from those of the
Mono Basin. The town of Lee Vining and nearby popula-
tion centers are rarely physically affected by airborne dust
or blowing sand from the playas surrounding Mono Lake.
However, in the future there could be a decrease in air
quality caused by smoke and automobile exhausts from
heavily populated areas at Mammoth and the June Lake
area. Such an increase in aerosols coupled with low-level
OCR for page 170
170
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
temperature inversions could also lead to decreased visibil-
ity and a possible increase in the frequency and duration
of fog over Mono Lake.
LAND-WATER INTERFACE
Tufa Dynamics
The tufa towers, formed when carbonate materials pre-
cipitate as described in chapter 3, are a significant scenic
attraction of the Mono Basin. As la ke level has declined
in the past, groves of lithoid tufa towers have become ex-
posed at the locations and elevations shown in Figure 5.~.
These towers range in height from a few feet to tens of
feet. The fragile sand tufa, whose locations are shown in
Figure 5.9, are castlelike features that form when the car-
bonate material acts as a cementing agent for sand par-
ticles. These formations are not greater than approximate-
ly 6 ft in height.
The sand tufa are highly erodible. Wave action associ-
ated with changes in lake level could be expected to topple
these formations. On the other hand, the lithoid tufa tow-
ers are hard and less erodible, although wave action
against the base of the towers has been observed to cause
towers to topple. Observations at the South Tufa Area by
personnel of the Mono Lake Tufa State Reserve suggest
that towers that are already unstable may topple with a
slow recession of the lake. If the lake level shifts abrupt-
ly, otherwise secure towers may be jeopardized. Approxi-
mately 24 percent of the changes in tufa formations in the
South Tufa Area, one of the most frequently visited tufa
areas, appear to have been caused by the wave action from
rising lake levels (memo from Dave and Janet Carte, Mono
Lake Tufa State Reserve, to Russ Guiney, January 31,
1986~.
Shoreline Erosion
As lake levels fluctuate, the shoreline topography will
be modified by erosion from wind, surface water runoff,
and lakeshore processes. This erosion is significant to the
basin ecosystem to the extent that abrasion from wind
OCR for page 171
Shoreline and Upland Systems
I · LITHOID TUFA TOWERS
N
Bridgeport Creek Tufa ` '
~'''''.'''.'''''''.'.''.''''.''.2'.''''''.''.'' -'it
~ It Island
.... :: 6415-6370 ft
: ::::::: ::::: County Park, De ham eau Creek:
< r Paoha Isla
~~
A^A_d `1 g *
Ring ~ |
171
Warm ,:: .
Springs ,.........
643C ft .....~..........
64
:::: ~v_-wv~ ..
. ::::: ~
1
Boundary of
Scenic Area
0 1 2 3
,
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 5.S Locations and elevations of bases of lithoid
tufa towers. Elevations are estimated by observations and
have not been surveyed. Does not include locations of
beach rock or tufa-coated boulders. (Courtesy of N.
Upham, U.S. Forest Service.)
inhibits vegetation growth and rapid erosion of surficial
soils destroys habitats. No published reports describe these
processes in the Mono Basin. Nevertheless, some general
observations can be made about the extent of erosion that
will occur if lake levels decline.
OCR for page 172
172
H RANGE OF SAND TUFA FORMATIONS |
N
~ . ~
TIFF..-. 1!!~
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
.~ .............................................. at,
.................................
....................................
...............................
............................................... ..........................................
~.,,,, ~
~ ,: ' '''' ''' ''''''' ''' ' """""" "' '1
A.;.;; .;;;; ; ;.;.;.; ;.; ;.; ~
.....................
..........................................
...................................
~: ~ n
................ ~ ' 2.""'""""""'""""""""]
. ~ ~
. ~ ~ '''' '' '" '""I'"::
2 2 2 2 2 2-2.~ ,2.~ ,2 ~ 2-- )~
_ ;~ it ~ r.:a°
. < ~~Ne itIsland
.................... t
. N
...................................................... )
... j^ .\
........................
_. 2.;.; ;.; ; ~
........................................ _
N...............................................
..............................................................
`................................................
......................
\...........................................
\....................................
~........................................
].................................
\....................................
~ .........................
t...~........................
]..~.......................................
/~......................................
'.~.' ........
'..~..............................
, ,..., .....................
.. ........
/~' .............
'\ d~' ..................
i. em..
,,.,,. - ,,.~ i
mono
B... ,,, ,,,, ,, ,, .. ,, ,.,, ...., .......
,, . ,, ,,, .,, ,,
................... ~
.................. : :. :,:,:, .: ~ 1
Lee Vinin · I
2 ' 2 : g I
....................................... , ! 1
............................................... ' 1
................................. , ., ., ,. ~
. '.~
_ ~.;..~
~...~.
I.. ............
t::~:: : ~ :~~
A, ~ Paoha Island
~ ...,,, ..,, ., ~
t::::::::::::::L
.,...,. ;~
.,.,., ., .,, .t
..-.2,.,...,~
1
', , ..... ,, - , ~
, . on
::: .~.:.6 9.. :.:::::- :::::
I...........................................................................
L222""''"'"''2'222'""'222'''"'"""''""""''"'''"''i"""''-''': ' i'"'
- - : ::: 64 _6432 ::: .:.:: :.: .
2 22 2.. 222 .. -...~642,,8.,.,;.: :,:,. :. ,:......
~ 1.,., .
... : ' ' ... -
' ' 2 ''-''
~,...........................................................................................
~ ~ 2 2 2 ..................
~::::::::::::::::.::,::::,:::::::::::,:,:,:::::::::::.::,:,::::::::::::::::::::
i.2'2 2 '"'""""""""''''''
122""""""2""""222""22 '''''''''''.'.'.'..'....'.'.'.'..............
i'2'2 '.' '""''''' .
[..............................................................................................
~ '22.2 2.' ""'"'"'''''''''
t...................................................................................................
12 2 ' ' ' .................................
` """''""''""":"""''''''''
I,:.: :.:.:, ,:2..,,:........................
JO ,:,.,:,:,: ,: :' ' 2
~22";"""""2"'22222"2""!
l
_
Boundary of
Scenic Area
O · 2
3
J
SCALE IN MILES
FIGURE 5.9 Locations and elevations of bases of sand
tufa. Elevations are estimated by observations and have
not been surveyed. (Courtesy of N. Upham, U.S. Forest
Service.)
If lake levels drop, several types of shoreline erosion
will occur. Declining lake levels will increase the gradient
of streams entering the lake, increasing channel erosion in
the vicinity of where the streams enter the lake. As the
streams adjust to new base levels, the channels will incise,
OCR for page 173
Shoreline and Upland Systems
173
creating steep banks along the channel, increasing sediment
load into the lake, and lowering the adjacent water table.
The result of the increased sediment load is progression of
delta sediments into the lake and perhaps increased tur-
biditY from suspended fine-grained sediments. Stream
channel downcutting caused by the past lowering ot fame
levels is apparent along Rush, Lee Vining, and Mill creeks.
In addition, diversion of water from Mill Creek has caused
dowocutting in Wilson Creek. Even if lake levels remain
constant in the future, erosion of bank sediments in these
areas, with increased sediment input to the lake, will con-
tinue as currently oversteepened banks continue to erode.
If lake levels decline in the future, the induced erosion
will further incise stream channels, increasing sediment
transport to the lake. If lake levels rise, the stream will
adjust to a new base level, causing aggradation of channel
deposits and decreased sediment load to the lake.
Lowering lake levels would expose large areas- of lake
bed to erosion by wind, abrasion, surface water, and lake
wave action. The effects of wind abrasion are discussed
earlier. In addition to downcutting in stream channels by
surface water flow, exposed lake beds are subject to rill
and sheet erosion by overland flow. This process removes
fine sediments from exposed surfaces and increases the
transport of sediments to the lake. Prediction of future
erosion rates and sediment loads is difficult, however,
because the rate of erosion in a particular area depends on
a number of factors such as the credibility of the exposed
sediments, the amount of lake level change, and the slope
of the exposed lake bottom.
The shoreline process of greatest concern probably is
the potential destruction of the islets in the vicinity of
Paoha Island (S. Stine, University of California, Berkeley,
personal communication, 1987~. Geomorphic ant! erosional
features on the islets indicate that they are highly credible
bv lake wave action.
.,
_
As with other shoreline erosional
processes, however, the extent and rate of erosion that
might occur as lake levels change will depend on the
amount of lake level change and the number of fluctuations
to which the shoreline is subjected.
OCR for page 174
174
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
REFERENCES
Aikens, C. M. 1983. The Far West. Pp. 149-201 in An-
cient North Americans, J. D. Jennings, ed. San
Francisco, Calif.: W. H. Freeman.
Blaney, H. F. 1961. Consumptive use and water waste by
phreatophytes. ASCE J. Irrig. Drain. Div. 87(IR3~:37-46.
Bolen, E. G. 1964. Plant ecology of spring-fed salt
marshes in western Utah. Ecol. Monogr. 34:143-166.
Bovee, K. D. 1982. A guide to stream habitat analysis
using the Instream Flow Incremental Methodology. In-
stream Flow Information Paper 12. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Bradley, C. E., and D. G. Smith. 1985. Plains cottonwood
recruitment and survival on a prairie meandering river
floodplain, Milk River, southern Alberta and northern
Montana. Can. J. Bot. 64:1433-1442.
Brotherson, J. D., and S. R. Rushforth. 1985. Invasion and
stabilization of recent beaches by salt grass (Distichlis
spicata) at Mono Lake, Mono County, California. Great
Basin Nat. 45:542-545.
Burch, J. B., J. Robbins, and T. Wainwright. 1977. Botany.
Pp. 114-142 in An Ecological Study of Mono Lake, Cali-
fornia, D. W. Winkler, ed. Institute of Ecology Publica-
tion 12. Davis, Calif.: University of California, Institute
of Ecology.
Cade, T. J., and P. R. Dague. 1987. Peregrine Fund News-
letter No. 14. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Laboratory of
Ornithology.
Cahill, T. A., and T. E. Gill. 1987. Air Quality at Mono
Lake. Report to Community and Organization Research
Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Calhoun, M. 1984. Pioneers of Mono Basin. Lee Vining,
Calif.: Artemisia Press. 172 pp.
Davis, J. W. 1982. Livestock vs. riparian habitat
management--there are solutions. Pp. 175- 184 in
Proceedings of the Wildlife-Livestock Relationships Sym-
posium, April 20-22, 1981, Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, J. M.
Peek and P. D. Dalke, eds. Moscow, Idaho: University
of Idaho Forest, Wildlife and Range Experiment Station.
Davis, L., and D. Gaines. 1987. Grazing away the scenic
area: report looks at pastoral problems. Mono Lake
Newsletter 9~3~: 13- 14.
OCR for page 175
Shoreline and Upland Systems
175
Dummer, K., and R. Colwell. 1985. Vegetation map of the
Historical Shorelands of Mono Lake, California. Scale
1 :24,000. Prepared from 1982 aerial photos. Prepared
by the State of California for State of California vs.
U.S. Civil No. S-80-696. U.S.D.C.E.D. Calif.
EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. 1985.
Trout Population Size and Habitat Characteristics of
Rush Creek Between Grant Lake Dam and Mono Lake.
Prepared for the Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power. 6 pp.
Farquhar, F. P. 1965. History of the Sierra Nevada.
Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press. 262 pp.
Gaines, D. 1986. Birds of Yosemite and the East Slope.
Lee Vining, Calif.: Artemisia Press.
Ciallegos, J. 1986. Mono Basin National Forest Scenic
Area soils analysis. Unpublished report to the Inyo
National Forest, Bishop, Calif.
Gilbert, C. M., M. N. Christensen, Y. Al-Rawi, and K. R.
Lajoie. 1968. Structural and volcanic history of Mono
Basin, California-Nevada. Pp. 275-329 in Studies in
Volcanology: A Memoir in Honor of Howel Williams.
Geol. Soc. Am. Mem. 116. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Geological Survey.
Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of
the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna No. 22.
Hansen, D. J., P. Dayanandan, P. B. Kaufman, and J. D.
Brotherson. 1976. Ecological adaptations of salt marsh
grass Distichlis spicata (Gramineae), and environmental
factors affecting its growth and distribution. Am. J.
Bot. 63:635-650.
Harner, R. F., and K. T. Harper. 1973. Mineral composi-
tion of grassland species of the Eastern Great Basin in
relation to stand productivity. Can. J. Bot. 51 :2037-
2046.
Harris, J. H. 1982. Mammals of the Mono Lake-Toga Pass
Region. Lee Vining, Calif.: Kutsavi Books. 55 pp.
Hart, T., and D. Gaines. 1983. Field Checklist of the
Birds of the Mono Basin. Lee Vining, Calif.: Mono
Lake Committee.
Holmboe, J., and H. Klieforth. 1957. The effect of the
Sierra Nevada on a Pacific storm. Pp. 99- 117 in
Investigations of Mountain Lee Waves and the Air Flow
over the Sierra Nevada. Final Report to the U.S. Air
OCR for page 176
176
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
Force on Contract AF 19~604~-728. Los Angeles, Calif.:
University of California, Meteorology Department.
Kahle, J. E., W. A. Bryant, and E. W. Hart. 1986. Fault
rupture associated with the July 21, 1986 Chalfant Val-
ley earthquake, Mono and Inyo counties, California.
Calif. Geol. 39(11):243-245.
Kauffman, J. B., and W. C. Krueger. 1984. Livestock im-
pacts on riparian ecosystems and streamside management
implications: a review. J. Range Manage. 37~5~:430-438.
Kerr, R. A. 1985. Inyo Domes drilling hits pay dirt.
Science 227:504-505.
Kerr, R. A. 1986. Do California quakes portend a large
one? Science 233:1039- 1040.
Klyver, F. D. 1931. Major plant communities in a transect
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. Ecology
12:1 - 17.
Kuchler, A. W. 1977. The map of the natural vegetation
of California. Pp. 909-938 (plus map) in Terrestrial
Vegetation of California, M. G. Barbour and J. Major,
eds. New York: Wiley.
Lajoie, K. R. 1968. Late Quaternary Stratigraphy and
Geologic History of Mono Basin, Eastern California.
Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.
379 pp.
Linker, M. F., J. O. Langbein, and A. McGarr. 1986.
Decrease in deformation rate observed by two-color
laser ranging in Long Valley Caldera. Science 232:213-
216.
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. 1984. Back-
ground Report on Geology and Hydrology of Mono Basin.
Report of the Aqueduct Division, Hydrology Section.
Los Angeles, Calif.
Ludwig, J. A. 1969. Environmental Interpretation of Foot-
hill Grassland Communities of Northern Utah. Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Utah, Salt Lake City. 100
PP.
Marcot, B. G., ed. 1979. California Wildlife/Habitat Rela-
tionships Program. Eureka, Calif.: U.S. Forest Service,
Six Rivers National Forest. 899 pp.
Miller, C. D., D. R. Mullineaux, D. R. Crandell, and R. A.
Bailey. 1982. Potential Hazards from Future Volcanic
Eruptions in the Long Valley-Mono Lake Area, East-
OCR for page 177
Shoreline and Upland Systems
177
central California and Southwest Nevada: A Preliminary
Assessment. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 877.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geological Survey. 10 pp.
Moyle, P. B. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California Press. 405 pp.
Muckel, D. C. 1966. Phreatophytes--water use and poten-
tial water savings. ASCE I. Irrig. Drain. Div.
92(IR4~:27-34.
Nord, E. C. 1965. Autecology of bitterbrush in California.
Ecol. Monogr. 35:307-334.
Page, G. W., and L. E. Stenzel. 1981. The breeding status
of the snowy plover in California. West. Birds 12:1-40.
Page, G. W., L. E. Stenzel, D. W. Winkler, and C. W.
Swarth. 1983. Spacing out at Mono Lake: breeding
success, nest density, and predation in the snowy plo-
ver. Auk 100:13-24.
Pallardy, S. G., and T. T. Kozlowski. 1981. Water rela-
tions of Populus clones. Ecology 62:159-169.
Powell, D., and H. Klieforth. In press. Water and climate.
In The Natural History of the White-Inyo Range, C.
Hall, ed. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California
Press.
Putnam, W. C. 1950. Moraine and shoreline relationships
at Mono Lake, California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull.
61~2~:115-122.
Romney, E. M., R. B. Hunter, S. D. Smith, and D. P.
Groeneveld. 1986. Tests to determine survival of
transplanted shrub and grass vegetation on the dust-
source shoreland of Mono Lake. Draft final report to
Environmental Monitoring and Services, Inc. Los
Angeles, Calif.: University of California, Laboratory of
Biomedical and Environmental Sciences.
Russell, I. C. 1 SS9. Quaternary history of the Mono Val-
ley, California. Pp. 261-394 in U.S. Geological Survey
Eighth Annual Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Geolo-
gical Survey.
Saint-Amand, P., L. A. Mathews, C. Gaines, and R.
Reinking. 1986. Dust Storms from Owens and Mono
Valleys, California. NWC TP6731. China Lake, Calif.:
Naval Weapons Center. 79 pp.
Sarna-Wojcicki, A. M., D. E. Champion, and I. O. Davis.
1983. Holocene volcanism in the conterminous United
OCR for page 178
178
The Mono Basin Ecosystem
States and the role of Silicic volcanic ash layers in
correlation of latest-Pleistocene and Holocene deposits.
Pp. 52-57 in Late-Quaternary Environments of the
United States, Vol. 2: The Holocene, H. E. Wright, Jr.,
ed. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press.
Small, A. 1974. The Birds of California. New York: Win-
chester Press. 310 pp.
Strahan, J. 1984
Regeneration of riparian forests of the
Central Valley. Pp. 58-67 in California Riparian Sys-
tems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Manage-
ment, R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, eds. Berkeley,
Calif.: University of California Press.
Taylor, D. W. 1982. Riparian Vegetation of the Eastern
Sierra: Ecological Effects of Stream Diversions.
tribution No. 6. Lee Vining, Calif.:
Research Group.
Con-
Mono Basin
Ustin, S. L., J. B. Adams, C. D. Elvidge, M. ReJmanek, B.
N. Rock, M. O. Smith, R. W. Thomas, and R. A. Wood-
ward. 1986. Thematic mapper studies of semiarid shrub
communities. Bioscience 36:446-452.
Verner, J., and A. S. Boss. 1980. California Wildlife and
Their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service General Technical Report PSW-37. Berkeley,
Calif.: U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and
Range Experiment Station. 439 pp.
Vestal, E. H. 1954 Cr~.1 r~t,~rn~ from Reich
Creek Test
~ ^ ~~ ~~ ~ Calif. Fish
Stream, Mono County, California, 1947- 1951.
Game 40:89-104.
Vorster, P. 1985.
A Water Balance Forecast
Model for
Mono Lake, California. Master's thesis, California State
University, Hayward. Earth Resources Monograph No.
10. San Francisco, Calif.: U.S. Forest Service, Region 5.
Williams, S. N. 1985. Soil radon and elemental mercury
distribution and relation to magmatic resurgence at Long
Valley Caldera. Science 229~55 l -551
Wood. S. H.
1977. Distribution, correlation, and radiocar-
bon dating of late Holocene tephra, Mono and Inyo cra-
ters, eastern California. Geol. Soc. Am. Bull. 88:89-95.
Woodward, R. A., K. T. Harper, and A. R. Tiedemann.
1984. An ecological consideration of the significance of
cation-exchange capacity of roots of some Utah range
plants. Plant Soil 79:169-180.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
mono lake
