Section 9 – Watershed Condition Summary – Phase 1

Introduction

This section of the assessment publication is an attempt to summarize at a high level the most germane and significant information that has been collected, reviewed and analyzed in the context of watershed protection and enhancement goals under CALFED.  Additionally, this reflects a summarization of stakeholder interests and their involvement in the assessment process.  This was a process that identified the challenges, opportunities and desired outcomes as articulated by those who participated in this process.   

Watershed protection and enhancement must be also viewed in the context of “source protection” in respect to water quality and quantity.  Water is an important natural resource that requires actions to be taken to assure that the highest quality and quantity is maintained at its source – and this effort continues on to the point of usage.  This context also supports multiple benefits that can be derived as it relates to the challenges associated with noxious weeds, erosion, fuels management, biodiversity and other areas that were a part of this assessment.

Findings

Impacts

The following is a summation of high level findings related to the general condition of the Millerton area watershed and stresses placed upon the watershed and its resources: 

1.      A significant amount of development is planned in proximity or adjoining the Millerton area watershed.

2.      There may be a significant demand for additional recreational resources within the watershed.

3.      Downstream demand for surface water exceeds supply.

4.      The unavailability of surface water in the watershed for domestic use places a great demand on groundwater sources.

5.      Surface Water quality monitoring has diminished within the Millerton area watershed.

6.      Groundwater quantity and quality may be on the decrease.

7.      The condition of soils may impact the effect of surface water collection and percolation as it relates to ground water recharge capability.

8.      Future land uses – in particular development may create impacts to biodiversity, habitat, wildlife corridors and water quality.

9.      There is not an active fuels management program in light of mixed ownerships, program costs, air pollution considerations and increased population within and adjoining the Millerton area watershed.

10.  Noxious weeds are commonplace within the Millerton watershed – and may be creating an economic and environmental impact. 

Data Gaps

1.      The future impact of land-use activities – in particular development within and adjoining the watershed is not known.

2.      There is no known active surface water quality monitoring program throughout the Millerton area watershed in which to obtain data.

3.      There is no known active ground water quality and quantity monitoring program throughout the Millerton area watershed in which to obtain data.

4.      The future impact to groundwater supply and quality within the Millerton area watershed is not known.

5.      There is no source of data that addresses soil structure, composition, condition and its contribution to water quality/quantity and a healthy watershed.

6.      There is no source of data that addresses erosion and sediment conditions within the watershed.

7.      The true level of biodiversity, condition of habitat and the role that the watershed plays as a wildlife corridor between the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Nevada range is not known.

8.      The scope of noxious weeds and invasive vegetation within the Millerton area watershed is not fully known.

Conclusion

This watershed assessment has as its outcome identified the primary interests and concerns for those stakeholders that have been involved in this process.  Impressions expressed by individual stakeholders pertaining to the current condition of the watershed have invoked a significant amount of discussion among each other.  The overall conclusion appears that the Millerton area watershed as a predominantly working landscape of rangeland and oak woodlands is relatively in good condition in comparison to other watersheds in the northern and central range of the Sierra Nevada foothill region.  However because of the increase expansion of the Fresno/Clovis metropolitan area and significant developments planned on the north side of the San Joaquin River in Madera County – pressure will continue to increase – and place greater demand on the watershed in many respects.  These include increased development into rural areas of the watershed, increased demand on recreational resources, and increased demand on limited resources – in particular ground water. 

Specific conclusions have been noted in each of the primary assessment Sections, (Sections 2 through 8).   Thirty-one Recommendations based on their specific findings and conclusions have been listed in Section 10 which follows.

Upper Finegold Watershed Condition Summary – Phase 2

Introduction

This section of the assessment publication summarizes the most germane and significant field data that has been collected, reviewed and analyzed to some depth for the Upper Finegold Watershed.  Phase 2’s field-based surveys have significantly exceeded the prior phase in the scope, depth and breadth of information collected. Additionally, the observations as summarized here continued to reflect various stakeholder interests and their active participation either in conducting the field based surveys – or as a landowner receiving the benefits of the survey and informational materials.

Findings

Impacts

The following is a summation of high level findings related to the general condition of the Upper Finegold Watershed and potential stresses being placed upon the watershed and its resources: 

1.      The eastern 1/3 of the Upper Finegold Watershed has the greatest parcel densities.  Other areas of significant densities immediately adjoining the watershed are restricted due to the watershed’s topography.

2.      Surface water quality may become compromised through increased land use for residential development – in particular due to the use of septic systems.

3.      The unavailability of surface water for domestic use places an increasing demand on groundwater sources within the watershed.

4.      Groundwater resources are primarily used for private domestic use – the quality of groundwater for drinking is not known on a comprehensive basis.

5.      Groundwater quantity and quality may be on the decrease.

6.      Fuels and fire safety for structures and properties are becoming more important because of the increased urban to wild lands intermix.

7.      Noxious weeds appear to be of a greater impact than previously determined. 

Data Gaps

1.      The future impact of land-use activities – in particular development within the eastern part of the Upper Finegold Watershed – and other adjoining areas is not known.

2.      There continues to be no known active ground water quality and quantity monitoring program within the Upper Finegold Watershed in which to obtain data.

3.      The future impact to groundwater supply and quality within the Upper Finegold watershed continues not to be known.

4.      There is no source of data that addresses erosion and sediment conditions within the watershed.

5.      The true level of biodiversity, condition of habitat and the role that the Upper Finegold Watershed plays as a wildlife corridor between the San Joaquin Valley and the Sierra Nevada range is not known. 

Conclusion

Under Phase 2, this assessment as a field-based investigation has contributed to the most contemporary knowledge of the Upper Finegold Watershed in the various resource condition areas of surface water quality, ground water quality/quantity, noxious weeds, fuels and fire safety.  These activities however, are essentially “scratching the surface”.  Surface water monitoring indicated potential impacts from septic systems.  Sample sizes for groundwater quality analysis were minimal – less than 2% (two percent) – with at least two drinking water quality constituents of concern present.  Even though well log data has now been established in a relational database as a repository with the California Department of Water Resources– the analytical effort required for determining conditions and trends with potential impacts has not been performed.  The prevalence of noxious weeds appears to be immeasurable – and a magnitude exceeding necessary resources for containment. 

In spite of these manifestations, the overall condition of the watershed may be deemed as repairable through continued proactive protection and enhancement efforts.  Other parts of the Millerton Area Watershed may not be as fortunate.  The most dominate – and underlying pressure on the Upper Finegold Watershed – yet not unique, is the increased development of residences, access through roads – and the requisite need for drinkable water and waste management systems. 

Specific conclusions have been noted in each of the primary assessment Sections, (Sections 2 through 8).   Thirty-one Recommendations based on their specific findings and conclusions have been listed in Section 10 (Protection Plan) which follows.

Go to Section 10

02/15/06