Environmental Management

, Volume 52, Issue 6, pp 1400–1414 | Cite as

Effects of Stock Use and Backpackers on Water Quality in Wilderness in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, USA

  • David W. Clow
  • Harrison Forrester
  • Benjamin Miller
  • Heidi Roop
  • James O. Sickman
  • Hodon Ryu
  • Jorge Santo Domingo
Article

Abstract

During 2010–2011, a study was conducted in Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks (SEKI) to evaluate the influence of pack animals (stock) and backpackers on water quality in wilderness lakes and streams. The study had three main components: (1) a synoptic survey of water quality in wilderness areas of the parks, (2) paired water quality sampling above and below several areas with differing types and amounts of visitor use, and (3) intensive monitoring at six sites to document temporal variations in water quality. Data from the synoptic water quality survey indicated that wilderness lakes and streams are dilute and have low nutrient and Escherichia coli concentrations. The synoptic survey sites were categorized as minimal use, backpacker-use, or mixed use (stock and backpackers), depending on the most prevalent type of use upstream from the sampling locations. Sites with mixed use tended to have higher concentrations of most constituents (including E. coli) than those categorized as minimal-use (P ≤ 0.05); concentrations at backpacker-use sites were intermediate. Data from paired-site sampling indicated that E. coli, total coliform, and particulate phosphorus concentrations were greater in streams downstream from mixed-use areas than upstream from those areas (P ≤ 0.05). Paired-site data also indicated few statistically significant differences in nutrient, E. coli, or total coliform concentrations in streams upstream and downstream from backpacker-use areas. The intensive-monitoring data indicated that nutrient and E. coli concentrations normally were low, except during storms, when notable increases in concentrations of E. coli, nutrients, dissolved organic carbon, and turbidity occurred. In summary, results from this study indicate that water quality in SEKI wilderness generally is good, except during storms; and visitor use appears to have a small, but statistically significant influence on stream water quality.

Keywords

Sierra Nevada Escherichia coli Coliform Visitor use Water quality 

Supplementary material

267_2013_166_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (63 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (PDF 63 kb)

References

  1. Berg NH, Gallegos A, Dell T, Frazier J, Proctor T, Sickman JO, Grant S, Blett T, Arbaugh M (2005) A screening procedure for identifying acid-sensitive lakes from catchment characteristics. Environ Monit Assess 105:285–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bordner R, Winter J (1978) Microbiological methods for monitoring the environment, water, and wastes. EPA 600/8-78-017. United States Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  3. Clesceri LS, Greenberg AE, Eaton AD (eds) (1999) Standard methods for examination of water and wastewater, 20th edn. American Public Health Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  4. Clow DW, Sueker JK (2000) Relations between basin characteristics and stream-water chemistry in alpine/subalpine basins in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Water Resour Res 36(1):49–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clow DW, Mast MA, Campbell DH (1996) Controls on surface water chemistry in the upper Merced River basin, Yosemite National Park, California. Hydrol Proc 10:727–746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Clow DW, Striegl R, Nanus L, Mast MA, Campbell DH, Krabbenhoft DP (2002) Chemistry of selected high-elevation lakes in seven national parks in the Western United States. Water Air Soil Pollut 2:139–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Clow DW, Sickman JO, Striegl RG, Krabbenhoft DP, Elliott JG, Dornblaser MM, Roth DA, Campbell DH (2003) Changes in the chemistry of lakes and precipitation in high-elevation National Parks in the Western United States, 1985–99. Water Resour Res 39(6):1171. doi:10.1029/2002WR001533 Google Scholar
  8. Clow DW, Nanus L, Huggett B (2010) Use of regression-based models to estimate sensitivity of aquatic resources to atmospheric deposition in Yosemite National Park, USA. Water Resour Res 46 (W09529). doi:10.1029/2009WR008316
  9. Clow DW, Peavler RS, Roche J, Panorska AK, Thomas JM, Smith S (2011) Assessing possible visitor-use impacts on water quality in Yosemite National Park. Environ Monit Assess 183(1):197–215. doi:10.1007/s10661-011-1915-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cole DN (1996) Wilderness recreation use trends, 1965 through 1994. Research paper INT-RP-488. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, OgdenGoogle Scholar
  11. Davies-Colley R, Nagels J, Lydiard E (2008) Stormflow-dominated loads of faecal pollution from an intensively dairy-farmed catchment. Water Sci Technol 57(10):1519–1523CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Deluca TH, Patterson WAI, Freimund WA, Cole DN (1998) Influence of llamas, horses, and hikers on soil erosion from established recreation trails in western Montana. USA. Environmental Management 22(2):255–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Derlet RW (2008) Backpacking in Yosemite and Kings Canyon National Parks and neighboring wilderness areas: how safe is the water to drink? J Travel Med 15(4):209–215. doi:10.1111/j.1708-8305.2008.00201.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Derlet RW, Carlson JR (2006) Coliform bacteria in Sierra Nevada wilderness lakes and streams: what is the impact of backpackers, pack animals, and cattle? Wilderness Environ Med 17(1):15–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Derlet RW, Ger KA, Richards JR, Carlson AE (2008) Risk factors for coliform bacteria in backcountry lakes and streams in the Sierra Nevada mountains: a 5-year study. Wilderness Environ Med 19(2):82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dick LK, Bernhard AE, Brodeur TJ, Domingo JWS, Simpson JM, Walters SP, Field KG (2005) Host distributions of uncultivated fecal Bacteroidales bacteria reveal genetic markers for fecal source identification. Appl Environ Microbiol 71(6):3184–3191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Domingo JWS, Bambic DG, Edge TA, Wuertz S (2007) Quo vadis source tracking? Towards a strategic framework for environmental monitoring of fecal pollution. Water Res 41(16):3539–3552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Field KG, Bernhard AE, Brodeur TJ (2003) Molecular approaches to microbiological monitoring: fecal source detection. Environ Monit Assess 81:313–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fishman MJ, Raese JW, Gerlitz CN, Husband RA (1994) U.S. Geological Survey approved inorganic and organic methods for the analysis of water and fluvial sediment, 1954–94. Open-file report 94-351. U.S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  20. Frenzel E, Haultain S (2012) Summary report of stock use and grazing in wilderness meadows. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 2011. National Park Service, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  21. Haultain S, Frenzel E (2011) Summary report of stock use and grazing in wilderness meadows. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks, 2010. National Park Service, WyomingGoogle Scholar
  22. Helsel DR, Hirsch RM (1992) Statistical methods in water resources. In: Studies in environmental science, vol 49. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 522 Google Scholar
  23. Johnson LK, Brown MB, Carruthers EA, Ferguson JA, Dombek PE, Sadowsky MJ (2004) Sample size, library composition, and genotypic diversity among natural populations of Escherichia coli from different animals influence accuracy of determining sources of fecal pollution. Appl Environ Microbiol 70(8):4478–4485. doi:10.1128/aem.70.8.4478-4485.2004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Landers DH, Eilers JM, Brakke DF, Overton WS, Kellar PE, Silverstein ME, Schonbrod RD, Crowe RE, Linthurst RA, Omernik JM, Teague SA, Meier EP (1987) Western Lake Survey, phase I. Characteristics of lakes in the Western United States. In: Population descriptions and physico-chemical relationships, vol 1. EPA-600/3-86/054a. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  25. McClaran MP, Cole DN (1993) Packstock in wilderness: use, impacts, monitoring, and management. General technical report INT-301. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, p 33Google Scholar
  26. McKergow LA, Davies-Colley RJ (2010) Stormflow dynamics and loads of Escherichia coli in a large mixed land use catchment. Hydrol Proc 24(3):276–289. doi:10.1002/hyp.7480 Google Scholar
  27. Myers DN, Stoeckel DM, Bushon RN, Francy DS, Brady AMG (2007) Fecal indicator bacteria (ver. 2.0). In: Techniques of water-resources investigations, Book 9, Chap. A7, Sect. 7.1. U.S. Geological Survey, DenverGoogle Scholar
  28. Nanus L, Clow DW, Saros JE, Stephens VC, Campbell DH (2012) Mapping critical loads of nitrogen deposition for aquatic ecosystems in the Rocky Mountains, USA. Environ Pollut 166:125–135. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.03.019 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Peters NE (1994) Water-quality variations in a forested Piedmont catchment, Georgia, USA. J Hydrol 156:73–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pope ML, Bussen M, Feige MA, Shadiz L, Gonder S, Rodgers C, Chambers Y, Pulz J, Miller K, Connell K, Standridge J (2003) Assessment of the effects of holding time and temperature on Escherichia coli densities in surface water samples. Appl Environ Microbiol 69(10):6201–6207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Puckett LJ, Bricker OP (1992) Factors controlling the major ion chemistry of streams in the Blue Ridge and Valley and Ridge physiographic provinces of Virginia and Maryland. Hydrol Proc 6:79–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rabeni CF, Smale MA (1995) Effects of siltation on stream fishes and the potential mitigating role of the buffering riparian zone. Hydrobiologia 303(1):211–219. doi:10.1007/bf00034058 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rasmussen PP, Ziegler AC (2003) Comparison and continuous estimates of fecal coliform and Escherichia coli bacteria in selected Kansas streams, May 1999 through April 2002. Water-resources investigations report 03-4056. U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, p 80Google Scholar
  34. Ryan PA (1991) Environmental effects of sediment on New Zealand streams: a review. N Z J Mar Freshw Res 25(2):207–221. doi:10.1080/00288330.1991.9516472 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Saraceno JF, Pellerin BA, Downing BD, Boss E, Bachand PAM, Bergamaschi BA (2009) High-frequency in situ optical measurements during a storm event: assessing relationships between dissolved organic matter, sediment concentrations, and hydrologic processes. J Geophys Res 114:G00F09Google Scholar
  36. Saros JE, Clow DW, Blett T, Wolfe AP (2010) Critical nitrogen deposition loads in high-elevation lakes of the western US inferred from paleolimnological records. Water Air Soil Pollut. doi:10.1007/s11270-010-0526-6
  37. Shapiro SS, Wilk MB (1965) An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples). Biometrika 52(3–4):591–611. doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sickman JO, Melack JM (2002) Regional analysis of nitrogen yield and retention in high-elevation ecosystems of the western United States. Biogeochemistry 57(58):341–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sickman JO, Leydecker A, Melack JM (2001) Nitrogen mass balances and abiotic controls on N retention and yield in high-elevation catchments of the Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Water Resour Res 37:1445–1461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sickman JO, Leydecker A, Chang CCY, Kendall C, Melack JM, Lucero DM, Schimel J (2003a) Mechanisms underlying export of N from high-elevation catchments during seasonal transitions. Biogeochemistry 64:1–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sickman JO, Melack JM, Clow DW (2003b) Evidence for nutrient enrichment of high-elevation lakes in the Sierra Nevada, California. Limnol Ocean 48:1885–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Silsbee DG, Larson GL (1982) Bacterial water quality: springs and streams in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Environ Manag 6(4):353–359. doi:10.1007/bf01875067 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Simpson JM, Domingo JWS, Reasoner DJ (2004) Assessment of equine fecal contamination: the search for alternative bacterial source-tracking targets. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 47(1):65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Solo-Gabriele HM, Wolfert MA, Desmarais TR, Palmer CJ (2000) Sources of Escherichia coli in a coastal subtropical environment. Appl Environ Microbiol 66(1):230–237. doi:10.1128/aem.66.1.230-237.2000 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Stoeckel DM, Harwood VJ (2007) Performance, design, and analysis in microbial source tracking studies. Appl Environ Microbiol 73(8):2405–2415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Stoeckel DM, Mathes MV, Hyer KE, Hagedorn C, Kater H, Lukasik J, O’Brien TL, Fenger TW, Samadpour M, Strickler KM, Wiggins BA (2004) Comparison of seven protocols to identify fecal contamination sources using Escherichia coli. Environ Sci Technol 38:6109–6117. doi:10.1021/es0354519 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Tsihrintzis VA, Hamid R (1997) Modeling and management of urban stormwater runoff quality: a review. Water Resourc Manag 11(11):137–164Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1986) Ambient water quality criteria for bacteria, 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, p 18Google Scholar
  49. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Method 1603: Escherichia coli (E. coli) in water by membrane filtration using modified membrane-thermotolerant Escherichia coli agar (modified mTEC). EPA 821-R-02-023. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  50. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2012) Recreational water quality criteria. EPA820-F-12-058. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, p 63Google Scholar
  51. Vizgirdas RS, Rey-Vizgirdas EM (2009) Wild plants of the Sierra Nevada. University of Nevada Press, RenoGoogle Scholar
  52. Wetzel RG (2001) Limnology: lake and river ecosystems, 3rd edn. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 1006Google Scholar
  53. Wetzel KF (2003) Runoff production processes in small alpine catchments within the unconsolidated Pleistocene sediments of the Lainbach area (Upper Bavaria). Hydrol Process 17:2463–2483CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York (outside the USA) 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • David W. Clow
    • 1
  • Harrison Forrester
    • 2
  • Benjamin Miller
    • 3
  • Heidi Roop
    • 1
    • 6
  • James O. Sickman
    • 4
  • Hodon Ryu
    • 5
  • Jorge Santo Domingo
    • 5
  1. 1.Colorado Water Science CenterU.S. Geological SurveyDenverUSA
  2. 2.National Park ServiceEl PortalUSA
  3. 3.University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  4. 4.Department of Environmental SciencesUniversity of CaliforniaRiversideUSA
  5. 5.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyCincinnatiUSA
  6. 6.GNS Science/Victoria UniversityLower HuttNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations