South Central

The South Central Subregion comprises the Mokelumne, Calaveras, Stanislaus, Tuolumne and Merced River Basins. Amador, Calaveras, Tuolumne, and Mariposa Counties are located in this subregion. While not as populated as the North Central Subregion, many of the same impacts to forests are found here, but more than a quarter of the subregion is protected in Yosemite National Park.
 

Southwestern

The largest subregion, Southwestern comprises six river basins, including the Chowchilla and Fresno, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, Tule, and Kern. This rugged, more arid subregion is less forested and less populated than other west slope subregions. A significant portion of the subregion is in the Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks and adjacent wilderness areas.
 

East

Dropping abruptly from the Pacific Crest to the valleys of the Eastern Sierra, the East Subregion includes the California portions of the Carson River, Walker River, and Mono Basins, and all of the Crowley Lake, Owens Lake, and Mojave Basin. Alpine, Mono, Inyo and portions of Kern Counties constitute the political landscape of this subregion. Sparsely forested but possessing superlative alpine landscapes, the East Subregion confronts fewer pressures on its forests than the forests of other subregions.
 

2.2 Experimental Design and Data Quality
 

Table 2-2 describes the GIS data analysis procedure followed for this report. It identifies the function of data, the specific digital coverages used, how we manipulated or treated the data, the key map products, and the tabular data prepared by analyzing the digital coverages. Throughout this procedure we followed the conventions of GIS development and were constrained by the analytical flexibly inherent in ARCInfo and ARCView software for PC.
 

Note: See Section 2.2.1 for definition of forest types.
 

3.3 Impacts on Sierra Nevada Forests
 

3.3.1 Human Settlement
 

Human settlement in forest ecosystems results in a variety of effects on wildlife habitat, hydrology and fire behavior. In Sierra Nevada forests human settlement has resulted in a decrease in crown canopy cover, a reduction in tree density, and an introduction of exotic tree species (McBride, Russell, and Kloss, 1996). The decrease in crown canopy cover is examined here to infer effects on fire hazard, hydrology, and wildlife habitat value that could be addressed through forest restoration.
 

Human settlement affects fire protection costs and losses by changing fire risk, fire hazard, and exposure of high value forest assets. For example, increases in population, automobile traffic, and recreation come with increases in the frequency of human-caused fires. Also, settlement changes vegetation, in turn changing the behavior of fire. For example, ladder fuelsÑsmall trees and brush which carry fire into the canopyÑare often eliminated, lots are thinned to improve access and views, and large, woody ground fuels are removed in higher use areas. Added roads can improve access for fire suppression resources, but they can also host more roadside fires.
 

Higher density settlements increase fire ignition frequency. Regression analysis of ignition frequency and population by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire and Resources Assessment Program (CDF FRAP) found a 189% increase in annual fire starts per thousand acres when residential densities went from 50-acre parcels to one-acre parcels (FRAP Website, 1998). Conversely, most fire behavior theory predicts an increase in fire hazard with increasing crown canopy cover. Thus the fragmentation occurring in the forest canopy of the Sierra Nevada as a result of human settlement could actually lead to a reduction in fire hazard if development extends over a large enough area (McBride, Russell and Kloss, 1996).
 

Runoff of precipitation from settled forest areas is greater than runoff from undeveloped forests, since interception of precipitation by tree canopies is lower in developed areas and more precipitation reaches the ground faster. Fewer trees results in less duff and woody debris on the forest floor, reducing the absorptive capacity of the land. Human settlements also introduce impervious surfaces like roofs, driveways and streets that eliminate or greatly reduce infiltration of precipitation, further altering the natural drainage of a forest.
 

Loss of canopy contributes to the observed decline in wildlife species diversity along gradients of increasing urbanization, while some well-adapted urban species increase in abundance. Where canopy losses occur, understory vegetation is altered as well. Introduced species, induced dominance of understory vegetation by opportunistic shade intolerant species, or simply lots void of brush are alterations seen commonly in settled areas (McBride, Russell and Kloss, 1996).
 

Residential Density

Throughout the Sierra Nevada approximately 32% of the land is outside of residential parcels, 62% is in parcels with densities below a wildland threshold of 1du/32ac, and 6% is parceled and settled at urban densities from less than 1 du/ac up to 1du/32 ac (Duane, 1996). This analysis focuses only on forest lands where densities are above the wildland threshold where forest impacts are known to be most significant. Approximately 87% of the regionÕs population lives within the areas settled at densities above 1du/32.
 

The most heavily settled river basins have over 90% of their population living at urban densities typically on 15% or less of the total land area. The Truckee River basin represents the extreme case in which 98% of the population is living on about 16% of the land area. The Walker River is the other extreme with 44% of its population living on 1% of the watershed.
 

Housing densities generally reflect the location of major urban centers in the Central Valley and the highways that link them to the Sierra Nevada (Map 5). The most dense areas are found in the Sierra Nevada foothills in Amador, El Dorado, Calaveras, Placer, and Nevada counties. Lake Tahoe Basin and Mammoth Lakes also reflect the higher density of Sierran recreational centers (Duane, 1996).
 

River basins with a large portion of their forested lands settled at urban densities (greater than 1du/32ac), include the Truckee (forest lands in urban densities occur in 14% of the basin), Chowchilla-Fresno (13%), Carson (12%), Mokelumne and South Fork American (11%), North Fork American/Bear River (10%) and the Yuba (8%) (Table 3-3, Figure 3-1). The South Fork American/Consumnes basin has the most forest land (over 100 thousand acres) settled in the higher density classes (Map 6). The larger river basins (over one million acres), including the Tuolumne, San Joaquin, Kings, and Kern have relatively small portions of their forests dedicated to residential use (between 0.2 and 3.7%).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Figure 3-1: Settlement of Sierra Nevada Forests, 1990
 
 

Source: Vegetation: GAP Vegetation and UCB FTP Site (based on Holland, 1986), and Calveg (based on Parker and Mathias, 1977) provided by CDF, 1997. Residential: Duane, 1996 based on 1990 Census.
 

Forest Structure Affected

The measurement of canopy loss in settled areas was undertaken for SNEP in a study of woodlands and forests occurring in portions of Sacramento, El Dorado, Amador, Nevada, and Calaveras Counties (Table 3-4). The characteristics of the forests and woodlands in these counties are typical of those farther north and south, and are similar in direction to those reported for areas of human settlement in Jeffrey pine forests in the Lake Tahoe Basin (McBride, Russell, and Kloss, 1996). The SNEP study compared canopy cover on developed lots and undeveloped lots and found measureably less canopy in developed lots. The study did not address the fact that canopy in undeveloped lots may have been affected by fire suppression. If undeveloped sites have higher canopy cover because fire has not entered them in recent times, then the measured differences between developed and undeveloped parcels would exaggerate the effects of residential development on canopy loss.
 

Foothill Woodland: Elevation 500-2,500 ft.; dominated by blue oak (Quercus douglasii); other common trees include maul oak (Q. chrysolepis), interior live oak (Q. wislizenii), and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana)

Ponderosa Pine: Elevation 2,000-2,500 ft. in central Sierra Nevada; dominated by ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa); common trees include California black oak (Q. kelloggi) and incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) at higher elevations

Mixed conifer: Elevation 2,500-6,000 ft. in central Sierra Nevada; trees include ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir (Abies concolor), Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), and sugar pine (P. lambertiana); California black oak is common.

^{a 52% is average of cover loss on area immediately around structures (houses, farm buildings, sheds) and the portion of property not adjacent to structures}

^{b =(Average cover of undeveloped lots) - (cover on developed lot)}
 

Based on these measured values we extrapolated cover losses in settled areas of oak woodland, ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer vegetation types (Table 3-5). Conifer woodland, while extensively settled in the northern and central Sierra Nevada, was not examined, since no empirical data are available about the effects of residential development in this forest type. The extrapolated cover losses were then used to quantify average acres of canopy remaining in areas developed at five residential densities (See Appendix Table A-1: Total Acres in Residential Development, and Average Acres Under Forest Canopy Prior to, and Remaining After Development).
 

Approximately 62,700 acres of forest canopy are estimated to have been removed in these three forest types throughout the Sierra Nevada. Mixed conifer forests bare the brunt of residential development in the Sierra Nevada. Over 50 percent of settled forest lands (over 250,000 acres excluding Tahoe and Big Chico-Mill-Butte basins) are mixed conifer which occurs in a broad band between approximately 2,500 feet and 6,000 feet elevation in the central portion of its range. The proportion of mixed conifer supporting housing is greatest north of the Tuolumne River Basin. Over 29,000 acres of mixed conifer are settled at densities above 1du/32 acres in the South Fork American and Consumnes Basins alone. This has resulted in an estimated 23,366 acres of canopy loss. Over 51,000 acres are estimated to have been lost in the North Fork American and Bear River Basins (Figure 3-2).
 

Development of the westside ponderosa pine forests is greatest in the American, Bear, Consumnes, Tuolumne and Mokelumne River Basins where almost 85,000 acres of this forest type are settled with densities greater than 1 du/32ac. An estimated 18,000 acres of ponderosa pine canopy loss has occurred range-wide. The Truckee River Basin has lost an estimated 3,572 acres and the South Fork American approximately 3,000 acres. The Tahoe Basin has also seen substantial impacts (approximately 1,836 acres) in ponderosa pine canopy loss just on the California side. Broadleaf forests are settled principally in Central and Southern portions of the Sierra with the Chowchilla/Fresno Basin having the most acres of housing in this forest type (36,141 acres). Five southern river basins are the only ones in the Sierra where the majority of housing at urban densities occurs in non-conifer forest types; these include, the Merced, Chowchilla/Fresno, Kings, Kaweah, and the Tule River Basins. A prevalence of oak woodland explains this trend except in the Merced and the Chowchilla/Fresno where the broadleaf forest supports about 27% and 48% of the denser housing in forested areas.
 

The non-coniferous forests of the Southwest Basins have been affected the most by human settlement. Oak woodlands support the higher residential densities on more than 158,000 acres (not including Tahoe and Big Chico-Mill-Butte Basins) throughout the range. We estimate that approximately 21,273 acres of canopy loss has occurred in oak woodlands throughout the Sierra Nevada. The American, Bear, and Consumnes River Basins have over 48,000 acres of Oak Woodlands developed at densities greater than 1 du/32 acres, resulting in almost 8,000 acres of canopy loss in these basins (Figure 3-3). Oak woodland canopy loss is also significant in the Chowchilla-Fresno (approximately 2,877 acres lost), the Kaweah (approximately 1,298 acres lost) and the Tule (approximately 1,234 acres lost) Basins.
 

Approximately 4,500 acres of broadleaf forest are developed at densities of 1/16-1/32 du/ac in the dispersed development around Bootjack, in the Chowchilla-Fresno Basin (Figure 3-3). In the Fresno River watershed alone, almost 20,000 acres of oak woodland around Oakhurst and areas to the immediate south and west along highway 49 are no longer wildlands, having been developed at densities greater than 1du/32ac. The FresnoÕs watershed also has the greatest impacts in conifer and mixed conifer within the basin.
 

3.3.2 Road-Impacted Waterways
 

Forest riparian systems are adversely affected by road construction and maintenance. Roads cause the direct loss of acreage of riparian areas, the direct loss of large trees, reduced structural complexity of riparian and aquatic environments, reduced supply of large woody debris to aquatic systems, reduced base flows with increased peak flows in streams and rivers, gully development and accelerated downstream sedimentation.
 

The type, distribution, and total miles of roads that have impacted waterways in Sierra Nevada forests will never be entirely known because of the regionÕs size. Nevertheless, we undertook to estimate the overall scale of the problem using data available for the whole region. Where there is a high density of riparian intrusion by roads included in our source data (USGS 1:100,000 Scale Digital Line Graph Maps), we infer the existence of a smaller network of skid trails on lands managed for timber harvest, as well as other Òghost roadsÓ known to exist but not on maps. The coarseness of the source data limits the use of our results to that of indexing where further analysis of road problems is required within the regionÕs 26 major river basins. When combined with local knowledge of the condition of road networks, the results will aid in prioritizing future analysis.
 

Figure 3-2
 

Figure 3-3
 

Where roads are less than 150 feet from a waterway we infer their potential to impact the waterway. The use of a fixed 150-foot buffer for an entire ecosystem is highly simplistic since road effects are so variable. At a finer scale of analysis it would be appropriate to employ variable widths based on: community area (the area which provides for the living requirements of those organisms dependent for their survival on the special conditions of the riparian area); energy area (the area that supplies organic material and attenuates the affects of solar radiation); and an index of slope distance around the aquatic system equivalent, for example, to the height of a mature tree in that location; and possibly other measurable risk factors (Kondolf, Kattelmann, Embury and Erman, 1996).
 

Additionally, the effects of a road on a stream can extend a considerable distance downstream from the road. The estimates presented here focus on the source of the problemÑthe roadÑand do not attempt to quantify the full extent of riparian impacts caused by the road over time. Restoration efforts that eliminate the source of the problem are the essential first step in restoring the area impacted. The potential for a full recovery of the area is also dependent on the inherent conditions on the site (geology, soils, slope, and climate) and historical and current land use disturbance upslope of the site (e.g., impervious cover, reduced vegetation). If natural recovery processes do not occur at a rate deemed acceptable, further intervention can be pursued. Such intervention could require that many issues unrelated to forest management be addressed (e.g., flow releases from reservoirs, grazing in forest meadows).
 

Distribution of Waterways Affected by Roads

Figure 3-4 shows the occurrence of roads in forest riparian areas is most common in North Central Basins, particularly the North Fork American/Bear, South Fork American/Consumnes, and Stanisluas/Calaveras River Basins. These data are screened for the six Sierra Nevada forest types and do not include roads in lands classified as non-forest vegetation. Forest roads (includes minor streets but is principally composed of roads and trails in wildlands) are the most likely to occur in sensitive riparian areas due largely to their sheer abundance. However major roads (e.g. interstate highways) and primary routes (e.g. undivided and divided paved roads and streets) are significant in the North Central Basins particularly.
 

Figure 3-4: Major, Primary, and Forest Roads in Riparian Zones by Basin!
 

Restoration needs associated with roads in the Sierra Nevada are greatest on roads built for harvesting timber. The installed timber road base was not located, constructed, nor has it been maintained, with adequate attention to protecting riparian and aquatic environments. On the other hand, roads and streets constructed for other purposes (e.g., select recreational routes, trans-Sierra routes, utility service roads, fire roads, and roads and streets associated with human settlement) are typically maintained for continued use and are managed in a manner to minimize impacts beyond initial construction impacts.
 

The Feather River Basin has the most miles of mapped forest roads within the 150-foot buffer of all the basins of the Sierra Nevada (Map 7a, Table 3-6). Also heavily roaded are the North Fork American/Bear and South Fork American/Consumnes Basins (Map 7b) (See Appendix Table A-2 for breakout by HSA). The Mount Harkness (North Fork Feather River Basin), South Fork American, and North Fork Consumnes Hydrologic Sub Areas each have more than 80 miles of road entering riparian areas
 

The South Central and Southwest subregion HSAs have approximately 450 and 470 miles of forest roads in riparian areas, respectively (Map 7c, 7d). The upper Mokelumne has the most miles of riparian roads of all HSAs in these subregions (approximately 85 miles). However, the riparian areas in the Calaveras, Clavey, and Tuolumne River basins suffer significant incursions by forest roads as well (Table A-2). The riparian areas of the more arid and less forested East Subregion have fewer miles of roads than other subregions (Map 7e).
 

Land Protection Status of Roads Affecting Waterways

An examination of the distribution of potential road problems relative to forest protection status offers insight into the likely condition of the roads, as well as the options available for restoration. With 61 percent of the regionÕs total miles of riparian roads occurring in private and unprotected lands, restoration strategies will necessarily involve a full compliment of approaches that advance the interests of private landowners (Table 3-7). Such approaches will vary according to stakeholder interests which include everything from industrial timber management to quality of life for residents. Approximately 23 percent of riparian roads are currently under management permitting timber harvest and other multiple uses by the USDA Forest Service and other federal land management agencies (Figure 3.5). The condition of roads under these different regimes varies considerably. For example, USDA Forest Service roads experience intense use beyond timber harvesting for recreation and other uses. Their condition is often worse than roads in private areas where access is controlled.
 

Figure 3-5: Forest Roads in Stream Zones by Land Protection Status
 

Forest Types and Roads Affecting Waterways

The forest type in which riparian roads occur further characterizes the potential for road damage, and consequently, constrains the selection of restoration activities. Oak woodlands, for example are a forest type affected extensively in the South Basins. The Kern River Basin has 35 percent of its forest riparian roads in the Oak Woodlands where slopes are more gentle and canopy cover is less than higher elevation conifer forest (Figure 3-6). Roads constructed on gentle slopes require fewer drainage structures (e.g., culverts), less cut and fill, and less costly restoration. Additionally, the extensive network of relic roads, unmapped skid trails, and haul roads associated with commercial conifer forests and old mining areas is far less common in broadleaf, oak woodland, and the non-commercial conifer woodland forests.
 

The Yuba, North Fork American/Bear, and Stanislaus/Calaveras River Basins represent a range of forest types in which roads potentially impact riparian areas. Mixed conifer is the most common forest type where these potential impacts occur, followed by the conifer woodland type. West side ponderosa pine, other conifers, and oak woodland, are all host to potential riparian road impacts in these basins (Figure 3-6).
 

Figure 3-6: Potential Riparian Road Impacts among Forest Types in Select Basins
 
 

Source: 150-Foot buffer applied to Roads and Hydrology: USGS 100K Digital Line Graph, 1993; Vegetation: GAP Vegetation and UCB FTP Site, Holland, 1986, and Calveg (Parker and Mathias, 1977) provided by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 1997.
 

3.3.3 Fire Suppression
 

The Sierra Nevada is a fire-adapted system. However, fire suppression throughout most of the twentieth century, combined with landuse intensification, has dramatically altered the natural fire regimes of the Sierra Nevada. These regimes, while variable from place to place, are generally characterized as supporting high frequency, low intensity fires. In lower elevations and in canyons on the west slope, fire returned every three to five years in dry ponderosa pine forests, and every 15-35 years or more in moist fir forests. In some true fir and lodgepole stands above 10,000 feet, these low-intensity surface fires occurred every 200-300 years (McKelvey, et al, 1996, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1997).
 

Both live and dead fuels in todayÕs conifer forests are more abundant and continuous than in the past. And while there is insufficient evidence to deduce a precise pattern of fire frequency or severity in presettlement times, there is a recognized need to restore aspects of a more natural fire regime to promote the health of the forest ecosystem (SNEP, Volume 1, 1996). Forest restoration with respect to the role of fire will require fuel reduction through a combination of mechanical treatments and burning.
 

Fire frequency is often expressed in terms of Fire Return Interval, or the period of time between fires. Large fires (greater than 300 acres in size) occur throughout the Sierra Nevada at varying Fire Return Intervals (FRI). This variability in frequencies as well as in fire intensities has contributed to the current mosaic of vegetation. One probabilistic analysis performed for SNEP identified FRIs based on 39,986 fire records from the period 1981-93. The relative frequency and regional trends identified in this analysis are believed to be a reflection of actual likelihood of large fire, and contribute to our understanding of the risk of fire throughout the Sierra Nevada (Sapsis, et al, 1996).
 

Fire Return Intervals range from less than 100 years to greater than 10,000 years in the Sierra Nevada. The two most frequent FRIs in the SNEP analysis are 1-100 years, and 100-250 years. Since these FRIs are of the same temporal scale as are human activities (including fire suppression) that have altered fire regimes of the region, we infer that the landscapes on which they occur are those whose fire regimes have been most affected by fire suppression policies and land use disturbance. Areas with infrequent fire are less likely to have had fire suppression activities occur on them and are therefore less likely to have un-natural or excessive fuel accumulations.
 

We conclude that from the regional perspective, these 1-250 year Fire Return Interval areas capture the portion of the landscape over which fuels management should be a high priority. Specific fuels management prescriptions can not be derived from regional data, but a range of options, from assessment to biomass removal, can be defined when these data are combined with vegetation type, land management status, and adjacency to high value forest assets such as late successional forests.
 

The Distribution of Areas with High Probability for Large Fires

The North Central river basins have the greatest number of acres in the two frequent FRI classes (Table 3-8). The North Fork American-Bear and South Fork American-Consummes have over 300,000 acres each in the two FRI classes. However, the Truckee River Basin has approximately 75,000 acres where 300 acre fire is expected to occur in the next 250 years. This area is centered around the most intensively settled portion of the basin. The Stanislaus-Calaveras and San Joaquin Basins farther south have over 260,000 acres each on which large fires are expected at least once every 250 years. Both of these basins reveal a more dispersed pattern of areas with greater likelihood of experiencing large fires (Maps 8c, 8d). See Appendix Table A-2 for distribution of FRIs among river basins and HSAs.
 

Land Protection Status and Large Fire Probability

The landscape in which large fires are more frequent is mostly private. Almost 77 percent of all acres in the 1-100 Year FRI class are in the private and unprotected Land Protection Status (Figure 3-7). Less than six percent of all acres in either FRI class are under a land protection status which emphasizes the natural role of fire and allows prescribed burns and managed wildfires (Class 1). This percentage would be higher if only forest vegetation were examined. (Table 3-9). Some basins however do have a larger portion of their total landscape under management that supports natural fire regimes. The Kaweah Basin, for example, includes over 25,000 acres in Sequoia National Park which is expected to burn at less than 100-year intervals. Compared to other basins the Kaweah Basin would be a lower priority for aggressive fuel reduction activities.
 
 

Figure 3-7: FRI<100 histograms
 

^{aSee Appendix Table A-4 for counties included in Sierra Nevada and for individual county populations since 1970.}
 

^{Recent population trends in the Sierra Nevada reveal a strong link to the StateÕs economy. When compared to the rest of California, the Sierra Nevada is the only region where net domestic in-migration remained positive throughout the 1990-96 period (Stewart, 1997). The movement of people out of coastal areas to the Sierra Nevada or other states, driven by the loss of jobs in coastal counties during the recession of the 1992 and 1993, explains most of the change in population across the state. The other main components of population change (births, deaths, and foreign immigration) were less significant. As the coastal economies improve, the contribution of domestic in-migration to the Sierra NevadaÕs growing population can be expected to lessen.}
 

^{4.1.2 Personal Income}
 

^{Personal income, a critical indicator of the populationÕs social and economic well-being, has remained high in the Sierra Nevada, but is derived less from local employment today than in the past. The Sierra Nevada has seen increases in commute wages, earned by residents who leave the county, as well as increases in unearned income from capital payments (interest, dividends, rental income), and transfer payments (social security, welfare, disability, unemployment insurance) (Figure 4-2). This shift in personal income sources in the past twenty years is driven primarily by the movement of new residents into the region (Stewart, 1996). These regional figures on personal income are strongly affected by rapid growth in three North Central counties, Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado, in the Yuba and American River Basins (See Map 2 of Counties and River Basins of the Sierra Nevada). The relative changes in sources of personal income are smaller in the less populous regions of the Sierra Nevada.}
 

^b Nonmetro counties only. Deep poverty is defined as a family income less than 50% of the poverty level.

Metro areas usually include an urbanized area with a population nucleus of 50,000 or more, as well as nearby communities that are economically and socially integrated with that nucleus.

Source: Hoffmann and Fortmann, 1996: based on Bureau of Census 1983; and Nord, 1995.
 

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns.
 
 

Subregions with high unemployment include the more remote, less populated areas of the Sierra Nevada. In theses regions, seasonal unemployment accounts for most of the high annual rate (Figure 4-5). The seasonality of employment reflects the fact that both timber and recreational activities decline in the winter months due to the difficulty caused by harsh weather. Many forest restoration activities would also be constrained by winter weather and as a result may do little to offset high seasonal unemployment rates. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project concluded that economic diversification through growth in less seasonal industries appears to be critical for reducing unemployment throughout the region (Stewart, 1996).
 

^aAverage of 1993, 1995 and 1997.
 

Gender Representation in Regional Employment
 

The proportion of men working in occupations throughout the region is greater than that of women. Data from the 1990 Census indicate that men dominate in every occupational category except retail and technical, sales, and administrative support (Figure 4-6). The pattern is even more pronounced in occupations tied to resource extraction like forestry and logging (Figure 4-7).
 

Figure 4-7: Gender Representation in Timber Employment, Subregions of Sierra Nevada

4.2 Shift Away from Resource Commodity-Based Economy
 

Economic diversification in the Sierra Nevada has resulted in a shift away from resource commodity-based activities towards the production of goods and services that are not directly tied to the regionÕs natural resources. Over the past twenty years, the timber, ranching, agriculture, and mining sectors remained relatively stable while the rest of the economy doubled (Stewart, 1996).
 

One effect of increased economic diversification is to buffer the region's economy from changes that occur within any one sector. Direct ecosystem commodity and service sectors remain large components of the Sierra Nevada economy and distinguish this region from others in the state. However, the possibility that a downturn in any single industry could send the region into a recession is considered to be remote (Stewart, 1996). Diversification, and the strength it implies for the economy, is what we see when we broaden the scale of our analysis, but it is less evident when we focus on smaller regions or the community level. What holds for the entire region then, does not necessarily hold for subregions and more local areas of the Sierra Nevada.
 

4.2.1 Producing Goods and Services
 

Overall, the region in 1990 generated goods-producing and service-producing employment in the same proportion that it did in 1970, but the emphasis shifted away from jobs directly linked to resource commodities and towards other types of manufacturing and non-commodity based recreation and tourism (Figure 4-8). Still, ecosystem-related wages constituted over 40% of all basic wages in 1990 (Stewart, 1996). The expanded personal income and demand for a broader range of goods and services that have accompanied population growth, are key factors in explaining this shift, as are changes in commodity prices and governmental policies affecting resource extraction.
 

Figure 4-8: Sierra Nevada Goods- and Service-Producing Employment, 1990

Source: 1990 Census as presented by Stewart, 1996.

^aGoods Producing: Agriculture and mining, manufacturing, and construction. Service Producing: High wage, low wage, public administration.

Goods/ServiceSectors
 

High wage service jobs are those with above average compensation. They include: communications, transportation, wholesale trade, finance, insurance, real estate, health, education and other professional services. Low wage (below average) service jobs are retail dominated and include: entertainment, recreation, business repair, retail trade, lodging and related services.
 

In parts of the less populous South Central and the East Sierra Nevada, the regional trend did not hold from 1970 to 1990 and local goods-producing jobs declined, from 31 to 27 percent, and 28 to 20 percent, respectively (Stewart, 1996). For the individual worker this could mean a drop in wages, since service jobs pay less than equivalent-level goods-production jobs. In other words, a worker shifting form goods-production to services would have to move into a higher-skilled service job to make the same money (Powers, 1996). However, there are many more higher-skill jobs in services than in goods so the effect may be less apparent when local employment is examined overall. In the Sierra Nevada, every region but the East has more high wage service jobs than low wage service jobs (Figure 4-9) (SBC, 1996).
 

Figure 4-9: High and Low Wage Service Sector Jobs in Sierra Nevada Subregions, 1990
 

4.2.2 Lumber and Wood Products
 

Timber has been an important resource commodity in the Sierra Nevada since the middle of the last century. There are currently some 2.4 million acres of private timber lands and 4.6 million acres of federal land on which commercial timber harvesting is allowed in the region (Stewart, 1996). Harvest levels reached a nadir in 1982 due to large fluctuations in timber markets (Figure 4-10). After peaking again in the later part of that decade, total harvest volume began dropping and has been at relatively stable levels since 1994. The portion of the harvest from federal land has declined in the 1990s more or less in proportion to total harvest (Figure 4-11).
 

Figure 4-10: Total Timber Harvest for the Sierra Nevada by Subregion, 1978-1997

Source: California State Board of Equalization data, provided by Russell Henley, CDF FRAP.
 
 

Figure 4-11: Timber Harvest from Federal Lands, 1991-1997

TodayÕs timber harvest continues to drive employment in lumber and wood products by providing the basic raw material for the industry. However, todayÕs lumber and wood products industry is structured in such a way that the direct relationship between harvest and employment has become more variable from place to place. Lumber and wood products employment includes logging, sawmills and planing mills, and production of millwork, plywood and structural members, wood containers, mobile homes, prefabricated wood buildings, wooden furniture, and fixtures (Office of Management and Budget, 1987). The industry largely restructured during the early 1980s as material prices fluctuated in the market and industry was forced to make changes that resulted in greater consolidation, higher efficiency at the mill, and a new emphasis on remanufacturing of wood products which are farther downstream in the path from raw material to finished product (Stewart, 1993).
 

Throughout the period 1984-1994, lumber and wood products employment as a percentage of total county employment ranged from less than four percent to as much as 25 percent in individual Sierra Nevada counties. Amador, Plumas, Sierra and Tehama Counties saw rates of 10-25 percentÑall showing a declining percentage except for Sierra County which ended the decade at around 20 percent. Lumber and wood products employment was at or below four percent in Butte, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Calaveras, Mariposa, Madera, and Tulare Counties. Tuolumne County saw slightly higher employment in the sector through most of the period 1984-94, but ended the decade at approximately four percent (Hoffmann and Fortmann, 1996).
 

Logging and sawmilling employment, one component of all lumber and wood products manufacturing, has been variable across the region but has declined significantly in the 1990s after the previous decade saw both increases and decreases in the north and south (Figure 4-12).
 

Figure 4-12: Logging and Sawmilling Employment in the Sierra Nevada, 1978-1994

North includes Lassen County.
 

By comparison to logging and sawmilling, the remanufacturing portion of total lumber and wood products employment demonstrates the increasing importance of remanufacturing in attenuating the effects of fluctuations in harvest levels (Figure 4-13). This is due in part to the fact that remanufacturing facilities draw on sources for raw material beyond the Sierra Nevada, including the states of Oregon and Washington.

Figure 4-13: Remanufacturing Employment in the Sierra, 1978-1994

North includes Lassen County.

RemanJobs
 

4.2.3 Recreation and Tourism
 

The SNEP Economic Assessment concluded that the recreation and tourism industry is the single largest employment sector in the Sierra Nevada. The report examined employment in private businesses involved in recreation and tourism, including: lodging, restaurants, retail, direct recreational services such as ski resorts, rafting companies, sports equipment suppliers, and guide services. Employment in travel includes many jobs unrelated to tourism and recreationÑit is pulled out of the total to isolate the contribution of jobs from non-travel recreation and tourism (Table 4-4). According to SNEP, approximately one-third of employees and expenditures relating to travel and recreation are derived from local residents, while the remaining two-thirds come from visitors to the region (Stewart, 1996). This estimate does not include the hundreds of state and federal employees serving tourist in the region. The Tahoe region supplies more than half of the recreation and tourism related jobs in the entire Sierra Nevada while relatively few jobs are provided by the foothill and conifer zones on the west side of the Pacific Crest.
 

Table 4-4 Travel and Tourism Related Employment
 

The Sierra Nevada economy continues to produce both goods and services to meet the needs of its own growing population and to supply surrounding regions. The increasing importance of economic sectors not based on resource extraction is evident in employment figures reviewed here. In particular, tourism and recreation is the largest single employment sector for the region as a whole. The resource extraction-based activities of ranching, agriculture, and timber harvesting, while still strong in some areas of the North and South Central Sierra Nevada, make up a decreasing portion of total economic activity in the region.
 

4.3 Ecosystem Contribution to Regional Economy
 

Aside from the substantial contribution of ecosystem-related employment to the regional economy, the economic benefits of ecosystems also include commodities (e.g., water timber and agriculture), noncommodity uses (e.g., recreation and tourism) and environmental and landscape amenities for residents and visitors. Sustaining the flow of these benefits should help sustain the long-term vitality of local and regional economies. This will require investments like forest restoration, watershed protection and recreation management. The scale of these investments is ultimately a societal choice, but should reflect to the extent possible the scale of benefits society receives from the diversion or use of natural resources for commodity and non-commodity purposes.
 

4.3.1 Commodity and Non-Commodity Ecosystem Uses
 

This section summarizes the scale of the economic benefits of ecosystems as estimated by resource economists in previous assessments of the Sierra Nevada. These estimates focus on net value of commodities and non-commodity uses. It is the net ecosystem value which is most appropriate to consider relative to an investment in the ecosystem like forest restoration. Commodity values derived from the regionÕs ecosystems include: hydroelectric power, agricultural and municipal water, forest products, agricultural products, and minerals. Non-commodity use values include: commercial recreation, non-commercial recreation, amenities, biodiversity and landscape preservation value.
 

The Sierra Nevada ecosystem contributes an estimated $1.9 billion to the economy both inside and outside of the region (Table 4-5). A large portion of this value is derived from the use of water for agriculture and municipal purposes outside the region. Non-commercial recreation in national forests, national parks, and state parks, is estimated to account for 23 percent of this total, with most of this value in the southern Sierra Nevada. Winter sports, followed by hunting and fishing are the leading activities in non-commercial recreation.
 

Table 4-5: Estimated Annual Ecosystem Use Values for the Sierra Nevada
 

^a See Stewart, 1996 for source and explanation of how estimated.

^b California State Board of Equalization for harvest value, minus 34.4277 percent of harvest value as input costs (FRAP, 1998).

^c Summary of County Agricultural CommissionersÕ Reports, 1994-95. Five percent of total values for field and seed crops, vegetables, fruit and nuts, nursery and apiary, livestock, livestock products, and poultry (FRAP, 1998).

^dThis is the average of two wide ranging estimates of commercial and non-commercial recreation based on different assumptions about portion of USDA Forest Service budget allocated to recreation (Stewart, 1996 and FRAP, 1998). The higher of these estimates is based in part on Forest Service published market-clearing prices for recreational activities applied to state and national parks as well as national forests.

^e Source for housing and population data was California Department of Finance. Only counties with both population growth and housing growth higher than the state average were included in calculation of average housing rent (value) for each county (FRAP, 1998). Includes ten percent of this value of housing assumed to be associated with amenities that make people move to the Sierra Nevada.
 

Hydroelectric power and timber each provide approximately ten percent of the total contribution from ecosystem uses. However, unlike timber and other uses of water, hydroelectric power is a consumptive use of resources only along the diverted portion of the river where it is located. The most productive rivers in the Sierra Nevada for hydroelectric power are the Feather and San Joaquin Rivers (Table 4-6). The entire region produces over 24 billion kilowatt hours of electricity worth over $450 million in the market place. The net ecosystem value of this resource is over $167 million.
 

Residential amenities are the site-specific attributes of a region which impact peoplesÕ well-being and contribute to their decision to live there. They are estimated to have a net ecosystem value of over $100 million in the Sierra Nevada, contributing about five percent of the total contribution of ecosystem goods and services (Table 4-5).
 

Table 4-6: Annual Hydroelectric Production and Value of Sierra Nevada River Basins
 

^bEcosystem Value calculated by subtracting 0.5 cents/KWH from the price for operating costs, and assuming that 50% of remaining value pays for capital costs.

Sources: FRAP, 1998, based on Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and California Department of Water Resources Bulletin 160-93.
 

4.3.2 Environmental and Landscape Amenities
 

Environmental and landscape amenities in the Sierra Nevada contribute values that flow to society at large, not just to the residents of the region. Wild and scenic rivers, old growth trees, and biodiversity are examples of environmental values which clearly have value to all of society. Voter approval of environmental protection legislation and bond issues for parks are a clear indication of societyÕs willingness to pay for these ecosystem values. However, these values have thus far eluded our ability to accurately quantify and express them in monetary terms.
 

One consequence of this shortcoming is that full cost accounting of forest management does not occur. For example, the environmental externalities associated with industrial timber management are costs that accrue to all who could potentially gain from the ecological benefits of intact forests. Yet these costs are deferred and do not factor into the accounting that serves as the basis for deciding if a timber harvest is cost-effective. This problem is at the core of the debate over how to finance the fuel reduction treatments needed in some Sierra Nevada forests. The prevailing economic argument states that, because of the depressed market for biomass, treatments which remove commercially valuable dead, dying, and collateral green trees are the only ones that cover costs. However, if the values of environmental and landscape amenities were quantifiable and fungible, we would likely see a broader selection of cost-effective treatment options available.
 

Quantifying the value of environmental and landscape amenities is challenging, yet it alone can not resolve the kind of dilemma just described. Once values are assigned to things like intact ecosystems, a mechanism for exchanging these values must exist. ÒCreatingÓ markets for such values has so far been the most widely used approach. Some of these ideas are discussed further in Section 6.
 

Californians have led the nation in efforts to balance protection of the natural environment with continued use of the goods and services it produces. But in the Sierra Nevada, as well as other forested regions of California and the United States, the two economic values, the extractive and the environmental, continue to stand in contrast to one another. And the real trade-offs inherent in extending greater protection to the environment continue to be expressed in terms of losses in jobs, productivity, and dollars.
 

This overview of the Sierra Nevada economy has demonstrated the importance of environmental quality in the economic conditions of the region. Whether or not a full accounting of environmental and landscape amenities is ever achieved, we must recognize that actions to protect the natural landscape are economic acts which have clearly positive implications to be considered alongside of the negative ones.
 

Cousar, et al, 1996

Elliott-Fisk, et al, 1996

For the Sake of the Salmon, 1995

Klamath Forest Alliance, 1998

NEOS Corporation, 1997

Dennis, 1997.

Pacific Rivers Council, 1995

Spreiter, Terry A. 1990

USDA, Forest Service, 1996.

USDA, Forest Service, 1997a

Watershed Management Council, 1997
 

Road Restoration in Sierra Nevada Forests

The effects of a road on a stream can extend a considerable distance downstream from the road. The treatments presented here focus on the source of the problemÑthe roadÑand do not address the full extent of riparian impacts of roads. Restoration efforts that eliminate the source of the problem are the essential first step in restoring the area impacted. Additionally, many roads in riparian zones have not resulted in significant impact yet have the potential to do so in the future. The assessment phase of road restoration work is important in identifying these possible future problem areas and prescribing preventative measures.
 

Closure and removal decisions requires consideration of how the road is currently used and what potential future uses there may be for the road. Roads serving recreational access, forest management, and fire management needs are unlikely to be eliminated even if they are in riparian areas. The level of roading can determine the options for fire management, since prescribed burning is easier to control where roads occur. The two principal activities of forest restorationÑfuels management and road treatmentsÑmust be examined together to balance the impact of roads against the benefits of prescribed burns. The road density in most non-wilderness wildlands is such that any proposed construction of new roads for the purported purpose of facilitating fuel and fire management would need to be seriously scrutinized.
 

The most expensive treatment for a road is decommissioning. A typical decommissioning treatment involves removing culverts, ripping the road surface, removal of unstable fills, and configuration for long-term drainage, which includes measures such as outsloping or recontouring of road sections. Experience in Redwood National Park indicates that the cost of obliteration is approximately the same as that required to upgrade roads to a standard at which they can be safely maintained (Furniss, 1995). Many less expensive treatments are available which address the majority of road problems (Table 5-2). Where roads travel along streams for a great distance and encourage intensive use of sensitive riparian environments, the option to eliminate the disturbance may exist. In some cases the fencing of riparian areas offers adequate protection, eliminating the need for more expensive road treatments.