CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SIERRA NEVADA: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND ADMINISTRATION

CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SIERRA NEVADA: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND ADMINISTRATION A Report from the Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team CENTERS FOR WATER AND WILDLAND RESOURCES WILDLAND RESOURCES CENTER DIVISION OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Report 34 CRITICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE SIERRA NEVADA: RECOMMENDED RESEARCH PRIORITIES AND ADMINISTRATION Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team Janet L. Parrish Program Coordinator Don C. Erman Director CENTERS FOR WATER AND WILDLAND RESOURCES WILDLAND RESOURCES CENTER Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources University of California 1323 Academic Surge Davis, California 95616-8750 (916) 752-8070 Report 34 October 1994

The University of California, in compliance with Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 503 and 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, does not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, sex, mental or physical handicap, or age in any of its programs or activities, or with respect to any of its employment policies, practices, or procedures. Nor does the University of California discriminate on the basis of ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, citizenship, medical conditions (as defined in Section 12926 of the California Government Code) or because individuals are special disabled veterans or Vietnam era veterans (as defined by Vietnam Era Veterans Readjustment Act of 1974 and Section 12940 of the California Government Code). Inquiries regarding this policy may be addressed to the Affirmative Action Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 300 Lakeside Drive, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94612-3560, (510) 987-0097. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii I. BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Purpose of the Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team .1 Project Scope and Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Purpose of this Document. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Report Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Description of Research Categories. . . . . . . . . .3 General Guidelines for Research Approaches . . . . .3 II. CRITICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS: SUMMARY . . . . . . . .5 Planning and Management Decision Making . . . . . . .5 Socioeconomic Structure and Function. . . . . . . . .5 Ecosystem Structure and Function. . . . . . . . . . .5 Impact Assessment and Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . .6 III. RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Figure 1. Potential Research Administration Facilities in the Sierra Nevada. 8 IV. CRITICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS: BACKGROUND. . . . . . 11 Planning and Management Decision Making . . . . . . 11 Socioeconomic Structure and Function. . . . . . . . 14 Ecosystem Structure and Function. . . . . . . . . . 20 Impact Assessment and Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . 24 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 A. Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team Members. . 41 B. Comparison of SNRP and SNEP . . . . . . . . . . 43 C. Individuals Contacted During Development of Research Questions. . . . . .45 D. Sierra Summit Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . 48 E. Case Studies and Inventories. . . . . . . . . . 57 i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The members of the Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team contributed the bulk of the work in this report. Comments that greatly added to the report's depth were provided by many of the individuals listed in Appendix A. Staff of the University of California's Centers for Water and Wildland Resources assisted with many aspects of the project administration. Elizabeth Frey and Jeff Woled assisted with meeting arrangements, correspondence, and editing. Sue Enos undertook the financial management. Michelle Watanabe completed a variety of tasks, including typing, office assistance, and producing the map that accompanies the report. Lori Pottinger and Lisa Micheli both reviewed drafts of the report, contributing valuable editorial and style suggestions. This project was funded by a grant from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection under contract number DFFP 6CA27879. ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Sierra Nevada is one of California's most vital ecological assets, and supplies critical extractive, environmental, and scenic wealth. Decision-makers are faced with the challenge of managing the Sierra Nevada without a complete understanding of its resources. The Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team addressed this challenge by identifying the most pressing resource management issues and information needs, and outlining a plan to administer a research program responsive to those needs. The diverse members of the team included local Sierra representatives, scientists knowledgeable about the Sierra, and statewide interests. This report is a follow-up from the Sierra Summit, which consisted of a major conference, a series of workshops, and working groups addressing Sierra Nevada resource issues. One of the key findings of the Sierra Summit was the need for better information to improve management decision-making, conflict resolution, consensus-building, and coordination among the numerous governmental and non- governmental organizations, private landowners, and interest groups. The Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team was not charged with resolving policy conflicts, but it reached consensus in the identification of priority research topics, many of which underlie the current policy conflicts. A great deal of research has already been undertaken on the Sierra Nevada and its management problems, but no single organization oversees or coordinates the interrelated information-gathering and planning processes throughout the range. In short, while we have an understanding of some components of ecosystem function, we have not successfully made the leap from gaining an understanding of scientific processes to adequately communicating that understanding to decision-makers and translating it into effective planning and management actions. The planning team's efforts were a step toward identifying information gaps and institutional barriers that keep critical information from reaching decision-makers. This report represents the team's work, which began in the fall of 1993 and concluded in the spring of 1994. The bulk of the report is a list of critical research questions, including background statements for each question. The questions are presented in four categories: Planning and Management Decision- Making, Socioeconomic Structure and Function, Ecosystem Structure and Function, and Impact Assessment and Monitoring. The questions in this report, identified by the team as the highest priority research needs, will provide a framework for a coordinated Sierra Nevada research program. Potential researchers would not necessarily be limited to the specific research suggested within each question if their proposals suggest an alternate approach that can clearly lead toward resolution of the question or issue. A quick review of the questions will reveal many of the obvious links between questions, and the fact that neither the categories nor the questions can be considered in isolation. An interdisciplinary approach to virtually all research in the Sierra is essential. The report also outlines a proposed research administration program, and suggests a structure for the next step in the process. This process will include establishing a policy board charged with identifying funding sources, identifying future research priorities, developing criteria for proposal solicitation and grant selection, disseminating the information gained through the research, and maintaining a public input process. Other important elements of the recommendations specify that the center operate independently and objectively, maintain scientific integrity and, if possible, be accessible both in person and electronically. The center can provide a forum for researchers to work directly with resource managers, decision-makers, and the public in identifying and resolving Sierra Nevada management issues. A facility or facilities should be centered in the Sierra to coordinate this research. iii I. BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION Decision-makers in the Sierra Nevada are faced with the challenge of managing Sierra resources without a complete understanding of the consequences of their decisions. Contradictory information and competing pressures among interest groups broaden that challenge. Protecting the Sierra ecosystem, which is essential to maintain the integrity of its unique natural resources and the economic future of its communities, is not a simple responsibility; resources are limited, individual stakeholders hold different goals, and in many cases we simply cannot predict the effects of management decisions. The Sierra Nevada is one of California's most vital ecological assets, and provides critical extractive, environmental, and scenic wealth. It is also important to the nation. The Sierra's resources are so vast and abundant that we have tended to think of them as inexhaustible. Recent scrutiny of the Sierra Nevada has caused serious concern for the long-term sustainability of communities and resources. For example, in 1991 The Sacramento Bee published a Pulitzer Prize-winning series of articles by Tom Knudson highlighting existing damage and increased development pressures. In recent years, there has been a number of calls for increased research to address these issues. Among these were the Sierra Summit, sponsored by the Resources Agency of California, which consisted of a major conference, a series of workshops, and follow- up working groups addressing management challenges for the Sierra Nevada. This report is a further product of the Sierra Summit process. Responsibility for assessing the condition of the Sierra and determining its future is shared by scores of agencies, private landowners, tribal governments, universities, and nongovernmental organizations. No single organization is equipped to oversee the interrelated processes throughout the range. One of the key findings of the Sierra Summit was that better information is needed to facilitate improved management decision making, conflict resolution, consensus-building, and coordination among these entities. We now have an understanding of some ecosystem functions and processes in the Sierra, but we still lack full comprehension of how the region's environmental and economic issues are linked. Federal lands occupy most of the Sierra, and local communities frequently feel that they cannot play a satisfactory role in planning their own futures as a result. Moreover, many agencies with overlapping jurisdictions are not aware of each other's planning and research efforts, or if similar efforts have been undertaken in other geographical regions of the Sierra. In short, we have not successfully made the leap from gaining an understanding of scientific processes to translating those processes into effective planning and management actions. Furthermore, a lack of consen- sus about management goals can limit effective action. Coordination of information and management actions throughout the 400-mile range is a difficult but necessary task. Actions taken in one area of the Sierra can affect the region as a whole. Changes in the Sierra also affect the rest of the state, which depends heavily on Sierran resources, particularly its water and recreation opportunities. Likewise, increases in population and air pollution in the rest of the state, such as in urban centers and in the Central Valley, present formidable management challenges for Sierra communities. PURPOSE OF THE SIERRA NEVADA RESEARCH PLANNING TEAM The Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team (SNRP) was assembled to identify the most pressing Sierra Nevada resource management information needs and issues, and to develop a plan to administer a research program responsive to those needs. The broadly representative team was assembled from local representatives of Sierra counties, scientists knowl- edgeable about the Sierra, and individuals having statewide interests. The full team met four times over a six-month period to develop a research agenda and communicate the findings. The team was chosen to represent a wide range of interests and expertise. Local representatives, who comprised the majority of the team (see Appendix A), were selected by the Regional Council of Rural Counties (RCRC) to ensure a major role for public involvement in the process. Scientists and statewide representatives were selected based on their recognized knowledge of the Sierra, and were recommended by university and state agency representatives. Members of the team were asked to work both independently and among themselves between meetings to solicit comments from colleagues and the public, in order to gain as wide a representation of Sierran interests as possible. PROJECT SCOPE AND PROCESS This program was not designed to resolve policy conflicts, but it reached consensus in the identification of priority research topics, many of which underlie the current policy conflicts. The planning team's initial task was to identify the critical resource issues that underlie policy conflicts. This step was accomplished in the first meeting. The team then translated those issues into the most critical research questions. Many of the same issues raised by the planning team had been raised at the Sierra Summit and later activities. Team members worked together and with the program coordinator to refine the questions. In addition, the coordinator sought further input from outside sources. The refinement of those questions, along with background statements on the existing state of knowledge and the need for research on the issues that were raised, comprises the bulk of this report. Much research has already been undertaken on the Sierra Nevada and its management problems. The planning team's effort was a step toward identifying information gaps and institutional barriers that keep critical information from reaching decision-makers. This effort is the beginning of a continual process that should include: keeping abreast of ongoing research and research needs, disseminating information to re- source managers and decision-makers, translating the knowledge into effective policies and actions, de- veloping new planning and resource management tools, and regularly reviewing information and actions. It is hoped that research undertaken as a result of this program will lead to innovative resource management techniques and resolution of policy conflicts by decision-makers. The team merely began the process of defining ways to merge or connect scientific data systems (including the processing and disseminating of new information as it develops) with legal and regulatory systems governing land ownership, land use activities, and public infrastructure and services. The primary limitations of the process were time constraints: the team completed its work over an eight- month period. Relationship to the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. The Sierra Nevada Research Planning Team (SNRP) was a state-funded program to delineate research priorities for the Sierra Nevada. The Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP), which is federally funded, is much larger in scale, but overlapped SNRP in geographic scope and, to some degree, in the issues that were addressed (see Appendix B). SNRP respon- sibilities were accomplished over approximately eight months, concluding with a recommendation to revisit the process once a research program is established. SNEP responsibilities, extending over approximately three years, include a thorough assessment of existing ecosystem information, development of a database and geographic information system (GIS), and evaluation of alternative management strategies. Four members of SNEP were members of SNRP, to ensure that the efforts of the two programs were complementary. PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT This document provides a framework for coordinated research in the Sierra Nevada. It is available to the public, in anticipation of the establishment of a research administration program. It will be presented formally to the Sierra Summit Steering Committee, the Executive Council on Biodiversity, and the public. The questions presented in this document represent the topics currently identified by the team as those having the highest priority for research. There is no hierarchy to the questions within the document. The research administration program is currently in a conceptual stage (see Chapter III). Funding sources have not been secured, and the research administration process has not been formalized. At this stage, responses to this report will be directed to the Sierra Summit Steering Committee. Changes may be incorporated into the research program development. Research proposals ultimately will be solicited and evaluated based on their scientific merit as well as their consistency with the information needs and criteria identified in this document. Potential researchers would not necessarily be limited to the specific research suggested within each question if their proposals suggest an alternate approach that can clearly lead toward resolution of the question or issue, and falls within the spirit of the original question. The background and specific research suggestions may be used as a guide for defining and assessing research proposals. REPORT ORGANIZATION The following pages contain the critical research questions identified by the team. They are grouped in four categories: (1) Planning and Management Decision Making, (2) Socioeconomic Structure and Function, (3) Ecosystem Structure and Function, and (4) Impact Assessment and Monitoring. A summary of the research questions follows in Chapter II of this report. Chapter III describes the team's recommen- dations for carrying out a research program. In Chapter IV, the research questions are presented in an expanded format, with a short background description and specific research needs identified for each question. A bibliography of potential source materials compiled by the team through this process is also included. The Appendix contains a list of SNRP team members, a comparison of SNRP and SNEP, a list of the individuals outside of the team who were contacted during the process, the Sierra Summit bibliography, and case studies and inventories. DESCRIPTION OF RESEARCH CATEGORIES A quick review of the questions will reveal many of the obvious links between questions. Neither the cate- gories nor the questions can be considered in isolation. The questions are fundamentally intertwined, and the reader is cautioned against compartmentalizing the issues or research questions. The categories were de- lineated primarily to provide a sense of order to the questions. An interdisciplinary approach to virtually all research in the Sierra is essential. The first category, Planning and Management Decision Making, contains questions related to land use, information sharing, decision-making processes, interagency coordination, land use incentives and conflict resolution. The questions in this category serve both as an objective of the research program and as an umbrella over the technical issues. Questions related to economic development and diversification, demographics, infrastructure needs, and mechanisms that influence resource investment are included in the Socioeconomic Structure and Function category. The issues in this category are heavily influenced by planning and management decisions. The Ecosystem Structure and Function category addresses questions of biodiversity, ecosystem structure and integrity, historical conditions, and surface and ground water management. Many of these issues inform the planning and management decision-making process, and many are intricately linked to those in the Impact Assessment and Monitoring category. This category includes monitoring needs and questions related to the effects of land use and resource management activities, external demands and uses, fire management, and infrastructure development. In a broader sense, it also addresses the effects of the planning and decision- making process, and it is therefore linked with that category. GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR RESEARCH APPROACHES The team felt that two general approaches to scientific research - analyzing case studies and establishing inventories and monitoring systems - deserve special mention. Case study analyses, resource inventories, and monitoring can provide extremely valuable information to researchers, but even these tools can lead to the pursuit of unnecessary data if improperly applied. Thus, they should be undertaken only in response to specific research questions. The team agreed on the importance of maintaining a genuine sense of purpose for any research that is carried out, and specifically stated a desire to avoid unnecessary data collecting. Researchers should carefully select methodologies and establish a feasible data management program. Monitoring and case study databases must be scientifically defensible and accessible in a "user- friendly" format. For each database, researchers should present all examples, provide selected case studies, and summarize reasons for success in a document intended for wide distribution. Case Studies. During the discussion of potential research topics, the team agreed on the importance of identifying management approaches that have been employed in the Sierra, the state, other parts of the nation, and other countries. This approach can lead to an understanding of the components of previous studies or experimental management techniques that would be technically and politically feasible for the Sierra. Assessment of environmental quality, manage- ment strategies, and policy directives in the Sierra Nevada would be incomplete without an identification and evaluation of existing "success stories." These successes take many forms, including: (1) scientific research and monitoring that has identified important environmental trends and the processes that drive these trends; (2) land use management programs that have either restored or improved habitat (such as riparian and stream restoration, erosion control, innovative timber harvest management scenarios or building practices); and (3) political processes that have resulted in interagency agreements or private-public cooperation and collaboration. "Process" case studies can be reviewed including cooperative planning and physical projects such as stream restoration. Processes that solved difficult management issues and foresaw consequences that transcended single parcels or land use types will be particularly valuable. Lessons can be learned from previous failures as well as successes. These types of lessons can help us predict the level of expected success for various management options, provide tech- nical details of implementation that can be applied elsewhere, and allow us to build upon past experience. Examples of many of these types of projects are mentioned in the text of individual research questions. Several case studies that were specifically identified by the team are summarized in Appendix E. Lessons from case studies can be applied directly to impact assessments, and can also inform the planning process. Inventory and Monitoring. In some cases, the answer to a research question will involve identifying baseline conditions and tracking changes over time, to facilitate an assessment of likely future conditions. Scientific studies in the Sierra Nevada clearly show that long-term monitoring is essential to identify changes before they become problems, and while mitigation can still be effective. Comprehensive and accurate long-term databases are sometimes fundamental to our ability to assess natural and social resources, detect ecological and demographic change over time, assess current environmental health, and understand the factors that regulate ecosystem function. Maps and other data summaries form the basis for much of the proposed research and current planning decisions. If the concepts of environmental indicators, thresholds and sustainability are to be successfully applied to resource and ecosystem management, monitoring must be a priority. II. CRITICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS: SUMMARY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING Integrated Planning Information. How can the analysis and flow of information be adequately integrated among federal, state, county, and local levels; governmental and non-governmental organiza- tions; and urban and rural areas to resolve manage- ment issues? Planning Process and Institutional Structure. What changes are needed to planning processes or institutional structures to resolve management and land use conflicts? How can existing decision-making pro- cesses be coordinated to reduce overlap and conflict while reducing negative consequences to Sierra ecosystems? Private Property, Land Use and Community Values. What tools can be devised to assist com- munities in achieving a balance of land uses that contribute beneficially to community character? What tools can achieve complementary use and management of private and public lands to maintain community character and value? How can communities better define choices and tradeoffs in competing land uses? Incentives. What kinds of incentives can be es- tablished and employed to facilitate effective com- prehensive planning, adequate resource management, appropriate infrastructure development, and economic diversification? SOCIOECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION Socioeconomic Conditions and Changes. How is the population base changing in the Sierra Nevada? Where is growth coming from? Where is it concentrating? What are the policy implications? Economic and Ecological Analysis. How can the economic and other values of ecological resources be assessed in a consistent and systematic manner? How can cost-benefit models for land management and land use decisions accurately reflect choices, including external costs and mitigation costs? Financing Rural Services. How are service and infrastructure needs currently funded in Sierra com- munities? Are revenues and methods for generating revenues adequate for meeting projected service and infrastructure needs? What alternatives exist for fund- ing rural services and infrastructure? Economic Diversification. What opportunities exist for economic diversification within the changing economic base? How can the public and private sectors facilitate, promote, and support sustainable economic development? What opportunities exist for cooperative enterprise, joint ventures, and partner- ships? Resource Extraction/Exports. How and why do economic values of water and other commodities in the forest vary throughout the Sierra? What are the upstream and downstream values and costs of water? What are the values and costs of other commodities? ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION Biodiversity and Disturbance. How do biodiversity, ecosystem structure, and ecological processes con- tribute to the health or decline of Sierra Nevada ecosystems? What parameters can serve as indicators? What is the role of disturbance in ecosystem structure, function, and sustainability? What are the ranges of natural variation of thresholds and carrying capacity? What is the appropriate balance between reserves or corridors of protected lands versus lands managed for use or resource extraction, to ensure maintenance of biodiversity? Historical Assessments. How do natural processes change the ecosystem over time? What are the im- plications of long-term environmental variability for management policies? Develop an historical, archeo- logical, and paleoecological assessment of baseline versus current conditions in the Sierra Nevada to improve understanding of ecosystem evolution. Watershed Function. How do urbanization, land disturbance, and erosion affect watershed function and the hydrologic system? Ground water. What is the condition of ground water quantity and quality in the Sierra Nevada? What are the relationships between surface and ground water in the protection of aquifers for present and future uses? IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING Land Classification. Identify locations and extent of management problems, high-risk hazard areas, public and private ownership, and land management policies. Develop a usable land classification and assessment system from the data that is linked to a computerized database or geographic information system. Surface Water Management. How do our management activities affect quantity and quality of surface water? What changes need to be made in surface water management to ensure the integrity of the resource? How can cumulative watershed impacts be assessed? Air Quality. What are the impacts of local and transported air pollution including acid precipitation, fog, ozone, and smoke, on the hydrologic system, vegetation, and wildlife? How can the existing monitoring system be improved? Vegetation Monitoring and Assessment. Develop a system for evaluating vegetation conditions, both for project level planning and for assessing overall changes to the resource. Wildlife Monitoring and Assessment. Evaluate the current wildlife habitat modelling and monitoring database, Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR), to improve the model or suggest alternative approaches. Road Density and Landscape Fragmentation. What are the impacts of road density and landscape frag- mentation resulting from road construction, urban development, logging, and water development, as well as human population pressures on wildlife, watersheds, vegetation, riparian systems, and water quality? External Factors/Commodity Production. How do external use of and/or demands for Sierra Nevada resources influence commodity production pressures? What are the ecological effects of commodity resource production in the Sierra Nevada? Can the impacts of external demand be predicted or modeled, and can they be mitigated? Fire Management. What are the environmental, economic, and social impacts of natural and managed fire in the ecosystem? What are the costs of fire management? How can we model its effects to lead us to effective management decisions? Infrastructure Development. What are the en- vironmental and growth-inducing impacts of infrastructure development such as roads, schools, water, and other utilities? How and where should infrastructure be developed? III. RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION New issues, new management concerns, and the need for new and better information will continue for the Sierra Nevada region in the foreseeable future. In order to take advantage of current management and data collection efforts, and to plan for future needs, a permanent institutional framework must be created to support studies of direct relevance to the Sierra. An element of that framework is the need for a research center that: * is independent in its conduct of activities; * responds to identified information needs in the Sierra region; * maintains knowledge of information that has already been developed, in order to avoid duplication; * supports research that is relevant to local, regional, tribal, state, and national decision- makers and is readily available to them; * develops new and continuing funding sources; and * is located in the Sierra Nevada. In recognition of the importance and value of this resource to the residents of the state, the research center should include legislative assistance, and it could be created by legislative action. However, local support and visibility are critical to its success. The primary purpose of such a center should be to facilitate the filling of information needs that will lead to better resource management. It should have physical facilities, a director, staff, and a budget sufficient to administer a program of information assessment, development, and dissemination. The center can serve as a permanent repository for all collected data, research findings, and case studies. To some extent, the center can be composed of widely scattered, electronically-linked institutions located both within and outside of the Sierra. For example, research units from universities, the U.S. Forest Service, and state agencies can quickly share information. It should be sustained by wide participation of many levels of government, private industry, foundations, and local residents. This is both to ensure its success, and to avoid duplication with existing programs. The physical facilities may be either a single entity at one location or a network of up to four units at different locations in the Sierra. Because its primary function should be to identify and support research, a single location may be sufficient. However, the work undertaken through the program should be dispersed throughout the Sierra, and should address geographic variations in information needs and data, as well as overlaps in jurisdiction and ownership. The nature of the research center's interactions with existing institutions must still be evaluated. These institutions are the University of California (UC); UC reserves and facilities that already exist in the Sierra; the University of Nevada-Reno (UNR) and the UNR Desert Research Institute, which currently supports research in the Sierra; non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as the Sierra Biodiversity Institute; community colleges such as the Feather River College and Sierra College; and local, state, and federal agencies charged with management responsibility. In the interim prior to establishment of a permanent facility, the center could occupy the existing office space of an institution where research programs are already being undertaken (see figure 1). Ultimately, however, the center must operate independently of existing institutions even if the space is shared. Figure 1. Potential Research Administration Facilities in the Sierra Nevada The center should be guided by a policy board representing the broad range of interests, concerns, talents, and ownerships throughout the Sierra. This board would set the overall policy of the center and provide direction to the center director. Board members should have overlapping terms of up to three years. The board's responsibilities would include: developing and administering funding sources; identifying and revising research priorities; developing and revising criteria for proposal solicitation, review and grant selection; disseminating information; and obtaining public input to guide their decisions. The board would also assist the director in encouraging research approaches, and in locating the best possible investigators from the public and private sectors. The center should provide a forum for researchers to work directly with resource managers, decision- makers, and the public in identifying and resolving Sierra Nevada management issues. An ongoing task of the policy board would be periodic review (at least once every four years) and revision of critical research needs. In addition, the board would be charged with assessing program success and making operational and policy changes. The center director, with approval from the policy board, would administer the programs of information assessment, development, and dissemination. Among other duties, the director would: (1) appoint technical teams to assist in a peer-reviewed, sponsored research program; (2) manage center funds; (3) hire and supervise a staff; (4) form and maintain ongoing linkages with supporting agencies, funding sources, and users; and (5) involve various interests as partners in the center enterprise. Interim Management. Until the Sierra Nevada research center has been established permanently, the program should be managed cooperatively between the state and a systemwide unit of the University of California, along the principles described above. Initial financial support may be developed from the State Resources Agency, cooperating federal agencies, private enterprise, the University of California, and private foundations. However, no funding has been secured at this time. A model for this approach exists through the University of California's Centers for Water and Wildland Resources, which administers research grants from a variety of sources. However, other models should be investigated, including the Center for Plant Conservation (CPC), which is a consortium of research branches and designated field research institutes across the country. It operates these field research units from its headquarters at the Missouri Botanical Garden in St. Louis, with field offices located in each bioregion in the nation. Research occurs through the field institutes, but is coordinated, directed and funded through the Center for Plant Conservation. Member organizations generally fill a gap in the program, which takes advantage of pre- existing programs. A central principle for the recommended research administration program is that an independent center represent the coalescing research interests and needs in the Sierra, providing a venue for improving coordination among resource managers, existing research facilities (figure 1), universities, private organizations, and the public. It should be accessible to a range of users in both the public and private sectors. IV. CRITICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS: BACKGROUND PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT DECISION MAKING Research Topic INTEGRATED PLANNING INFORMATION. How can the analysis and flow of information be adequately integrated among federal, state, county, and local levels; governmental and non-governmental organizations; and urban and rural areas to resolve management issues? Background In addition to local community and county agencies, most Sierra communities are influenced by state and federal agencies, special districts, tribal governments, private landowners and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Information sharing among the different institutions is sometimes inefficient or nonexistent. This is particularly true for environmental and economic impact assessments. Improved agency coordination is needed to avoid costly duplication of efforts, omission of critical data, and contradictory decisions resulting from analysis of different data sets for the same issue. Furthermore, agencies with adjacent or overlapping jurisdictions or parcels need to consider the cumulative effects of decisions (see also Planning Process and Institutional Structure, below, and Impact Assessment and Monitoring, pages 24-34). Sierra Summit recommendations to address this issue included: conducting an ecological and socioeconomic inventory to determine information gaps (see Socioeconomic Conditions and Changes, page 14), establishing an information clearinghouse, and developing a GIS basemap (see also Land Classification, page 24). Putting available information into a readily usable format and/or adopting a process to facilitate the analysis and flow of information could help planners and decision- makers assess the impacts of land use and management options beyond their agency's jurisdictional boundaries. Specific Research Needs Determine what information is already being collected, by which agencies and in what form. Identify opportunities to eliminate duplication. Develop methods to inform planning agencies about existing data from other sources. Investigate affordable systems to transfer information electronically. Research Topic PLANNING PROCESS AND INSTITUTIONAL STRUCTURE. What changes are needed to planning processes or institutional structures to resolve management and land use conflicts? How can existing decision-making processes be coordinated to reduce overlap and conflict while reducing negative consequences to Sierra ecosystems? Background Continued growth will cause additional stresses to the Sierra ecosystem without necessarily resolving the economic difficulties of Sierra Nevada communities. Many agencies, including the U.S. Forest Service, both own and manage land and resources, while others, such as the California Department of Fish and Game, are responsible for the protection of particular resources. Local governments typically regulate private land over which they exercise planning authority. Tribal governments own and manage some lands, but their organizational structure, ownership, and management interests vary. In some cases, an agency's constituency lies outside of the Sierra, but it owns land and manages resources in the Sierra. This is particularly true of urban water agencies. In short, a range of institutions often have overlapping interests and management jurisdictions. In rethinking the process of setting and implementing policies, there may be opportunities to streamline governmental organizations and build consensus among organizations. Agency plans and regulations need to be integrated to ensure consistent policies and complementary implementation procedures. For example, local governments prepare general plans outlining their future development and environmental protection measures. However, in many cases a federal landowner has developed goals independently of local governments (as is the case with timber harvest levels on Forest Service lands), and the local government agencies have little input and no control over the decision-making process for land that is under federal jurisdiction. Similarly, effective interagency coordination is required to ensure efficient issuing of permits for land development, both in terms of maximizing compliance and minimizing permit issue costs to members of the regulated community. Overlapping permit-issuing authority may result in permit-issuing and decision-making backlogs, duplications, conflicts, or lack of regulatory enforcement. Specific Research Needs Identify opportunities for common/cooperative land management policies and processes that can be established to reach consensus on the use and management of land with multiple ownership and responsibility. Evaluate the effectiveness of existing models, and determine the conditions under which they would work in different communities in the Sierra. Examine the use of alternative planning units, such as watersheds and airsheds, that are ecologically meaningful. Develop and analyze alternative political/governmental institutions for managing land and ecosystems, including cooperative arrangements, permit-issue streamlining, institutional restructuring, or creating new institutions (such as air quality districts). Examine alternative planning approaches that emphasize conservation of biodiversity, as was accomplished by Tuolumne County when it adopted wildlife protection measures in its General Plan. Research Topic PRIVATE PROPERTY, LAND USE, AND COMMUNITY VALUES. What tools can be devised to assist communities in achieving a balance of land uses that contribute beneficially to community character? What tools can achieve complementary use and management of private and public lands to maintain community character and value? How can communities better define choices and tradeoffs in competing land uses? Background Communities limit or prohibit harmful uses of private land in order to protect human health, community character, and the environment. As long as some economic value is left in the property, regulations generally do not constitute a governmental "taking" of property, and the governing agency would not be required to compensate the property owner for loss of property value. However, the definitions of what is "harmful" are not clearly described, and standards vary by community. For private land, the community defines values through the general plan process. By including the opinions of private landowners and the general public into the planning process, compromises can often be identified that are both consistent with planning objectives and acceptable to landowners. For public land, the concept of "community value" extends beyond the existing community; for federal lands, it extends nationally. Specific Research Needs Delineate ways for communities to agree upon land uses that should be prohibited or restricted. Identify land use and regulatory issues that remain unresolved and are outside of the domain of the courts. Include new issues that have arisen under current law and regulatory/management practices that can affect land use and regulatory decisions. Define the social, cultural, and political acceptability of limiting uses of private property when those limitations are legally permissible. Define the social, cultural, and political desirability of limiting uses that are perceived to damage public values. Research Topic INCENTIVES. What kinds of incentives can be established and employed to facilitate effective comprehensive planning, adequate resource management, appropriate infrastructure development, and economic diversification? Background The primary land management/planning agencies in the Sierra all have comprehensive plans outlining idealized growth. However, even when conflicts among the agencies are largely resolved, implementation of land use plans cannot be guaranteed on privately-owned land. Furthermore, most communities prefer not to engage in "heavy- handed" regulation. Determining limitations to idealized plans and finding the common ground in traditional conflicts can lead to the development of incentives that optimize environmentally positive economic activity and long-term, sustainable resource protection. Existing innovations include transferrable development rights (TDRs), the Williamson Act, conservation easements, changes in tax code structure, mitigation banking, and cooperative agreements like Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP). Land use policies, zoning regulations, and growth management strategies influence development patterns and may provide incentive mechanisms. The state has also considered providing fiscal and other incentives as part of the growth management process, such as through an infrastructure bank or streamlining of the permit process, but the policy direction for this issue is still evolving. Specific Research Needs Determine the effects of land use policies and zoning regulations on the local tax base. Identify fiscal strategies, zoning regulations, and infrastructure development measures that increase resource and/or environmental qualities. Identify measures that could adversely affect environmental quality. Use information on existing conditions, development standards, and identified thresholds (see Biodiversity and Disturbance, page 20) to generate options for potential tradeoffs, banking, or balancing systems. The analysis could be made for one or more landscape units (bioregion, county, watershed), and could address multiple resources (including air, water, and soil) and competing uses (such as recreation, mining, timber harvest, water) at a single location (see also Land Classification, page 24). Identify mechanisms that increase or reduce levels of reinvestment in resource qualities (a) within ownerships, (b) within communities or counties, and (c) in the region. Identify mechanisms that increase or reduce resource investment that derives from non- resource income. SOCIOECONOMIC STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION Research Topic SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CHANGES. How is the population base changing in the Sierra Nevada? Where is growth coming from? Where is it concentrating? What are the policy implications? Background In order to plan for the Sierra's communities, we need to know what to expect in terms of changes in growth rates and sources, what kinds of pressures are resulting from growth on natural and human systems, and how the economic base is changing (see also Economic Diversification, page 18). In some counties, much of the recent growth has been in the population over the age of 65, many of whom are retired and/or unemployed. Unemployment levels remain high because much of the economy is seasonal. Many of these concerns can be addressed through an inventory of key demographic and socioeconomic indicators, and can provide a baseline against which future changes would be measured and trends tracked. Potential problem areas could be identified, and policies and strategies developed to address them. Local and regional officials would have better data available to them to inform their planning and land use decisions. A better understanding of how the local economic base is changing, the dynamics of how the economy operates, and the opportunities and challenges presented by these changing conditions would allow communities to be more anticipatory and proactive, especially in the areas of job creation, worker retraining, economic diversification, land use planning, and protection of social diversity and cultural integrity. Some of the data already exists at various levels of detail through the California Trade and Commerce Agency, as well as other state agencies, such as the Department of Finance, Board of Equalization, Employment Development Department, and private economists. In addition, various economic strategies and feasibility studies have been prepared, primarily through funding by the federal Economic Development Administration and the federal Community Development Block Grant program administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development. However, these documents are not widely disseminated. Many state agencies responsible for growth management and economic development do not use these documents for regional analysis and policy development since there is no single repository for this data. Having consistent data sets collected throughout the counties would allow for better analysis and policy/program development across and within the region. Specific Research Needs Delineate areas of population, job growth, and decline. Characterize the changes in settlement patterns. Determine what types of jobs are being created and what types of jobs are being lost. Determine the data that should be tracked to identify socioeconomic and demographic changes. Develop a baseline socioeconomic inventory and monitoring program. Identify the information sources and methods needed to compile and update the inventory. Emphasize a standardized format, so it can be widely used, but with flexibility to incorporate local conditions and anomalies. Identify how the various state agencies can assist in developing data sources, disseminating information to local and regional users, and establishing methods to centralize demographic and socioeconomic information for the region. Determine the human relationships to the resources in social/economic terms. Identify the sources of capital and movements of capital in and out of the Sierra. Determine whether demographic pressures have different effects in different regions in the Sierra Nevada, and the circumstances under which differences in degree and types of pressure produce different outcomes on resources, settlement densities, and community stability. Identify the structural and institutional changes that are associated with different intensities of pressure and initial conditions. Assess how demographic changes throughout the state affect the Sierra Nevada and how changes in the Sierra Nevada affect the rest of the state. For example, determine whether there are concentrated locations where former urban residents are building retirement homes. Determine what policies appear to affect settlement dynamics, and how and why different planning authorities use them. Identify communities in the west slope foothills and in the east slope areas that may be at risk of becoming bedroom communities for employment centers in the Central Valley and Nevada. Develop measures to attain a jobs/housing balance within those communities. Estimate the contribution of tourism and recreation to Sierra communities (who is visiting the region, where they are from, where they stay, how long they stay, what they do, and how much they spend). Estimate the contribution of commodity production activities, including timber harvesting, grazing, and mining. Assess the benefits and additional pressures and costs, both physical and service costs/benefits, to local communities from these activities. Research Topic ECONOMIC AND ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS. How can the economic and other values of ecological resources be assessed in a consistent and systematic manner? How can cost-benefit models for land management and land use decisions accurately reflect choices, including external costs and mitigation costs? Background Decision-makers are frequently faced with the question of the economic ramifications of a certain land use activity on a given environmental resource. The concept of "resources" includes traditional commodity resources such as timber, water, and rangeland, but also includes views, open space, recreational potential, wildlife, water quality, air quality, noise levels, and non-commodity resources such as certain vegetation types that are important to Native American communities. Recent studies suggest that in some cases the cost of development can be greater than the cost of leaving land in open space, when accounting for the economic value of the environmental resource that may be impacted, and the economic costs of that impact. Economic values may be assigned to specific resources in terms of commodity values, ecological values, aesthetic values, recreation values, and clean water values. However, these "values" are not completely understood, and the values assigned by one agency or management unit may be different than those assigned by another agency or management unit. Thus, the economic analysis tends to be biased in favor of the goals of that management unit. Without a formal and defensible method, the assignment of values can be arbitrary, influencing a particular choice without supportable evidence of the true cost of that choice. An assessment of both the environmental and economic impacts, including costs that are typically thought of as external or indirect, is necessary to accurately assess the ramifications of land use and management choices. Any models should be capable of taking into account unique features of the local environment and economy. Specific Research Needs Identify the economic values assigned to given environmental resources by governing units for project assessments and cost-benefit analyses. Determine whether these values have been developed using rational economic and resource-loss data, and whether they are consistent from unit to unit. Develop a methodology to assess, over the life of a proposed project: (a) resource costs in terms of long-term opportunity costs, probable need for future clean-up or restoration potential, income generation or loss, and loss or enhancement of resource values; and (b) fiscal factors, such as opportunity costs for different uses, tax generation, income generated for the community, economic multipliers, and cost of providing community services and infrastructure, including water, utilities, waste disposal, police, fire, and schools. Identify resources for which there are no economic valuations currently in use, and assess the need to develop economic values for the resources. Evaluate the suitability of economic/environmental analysis models for developing an understanding of the long-range environmental and economic effects of land use and land management decisions. Determine the economic values that have been assigned to proposed mitigation. Determine whether proposed mitigation projects have been implemented and whether they have been assessed following implementation. Evaluate the effectiveness of the projects in terms of meeting mitigation goals. Research Topic FINANCING RURAL SERVICES. How are service and infrastructure needs currently funded in Sierra communities? Are revenues and methods for generating revenues adequate for meeting projected service and infrastructure needs? What alternatives exist for funding rural services and infrastructure? Background Currently, some Sierra communities are financially dependent on federal timber and grazing receipts, as well as PILT (Payment In Lieu of Taxes) redistributions for federal lands. PILT provides payments of up to $1 million per year, based on the area within a local government occupied by federal lands and the size of the population, as a substitute for "lost" property tax revenue. Portions of federal timber and grazing revenues are also redistributed to local governments. Communities without productive resources (such as harvestable timber stands) or other sources of income (such as tourism) must rely on alternate sources of funding for services. Thus, funding is unevenly distributed throughout the Sierra region. Many of the communities that do not benefit from federal land and resource revenues are affected by other uses on federal lands within their counties. Furthermore, the harvest levels and corresponding revenues vary widely from year to year, resulting in an unstable funding source for essential services. This system may promote unsustainable resource management policies in order to pay for rural services, which include schools, health care, police and fire protection, emergency medical services, and infrastructure improvements (roads, water systems, waste disposal, sewer). It may be more sustainable in the long term to restructure the revenue redistributions so that payments do not encourage resource depletions or economic dependency on the federal government. In addition, some communities with resource-weighted, undiversified economies are experiencing losses in retail sales, and may be able to identify ways to fund services while diversifying their economies (see Economic Diversification question, page 18). The state Growth Management Council, housed in the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, is charged with development of statewide growth management policies that will influence infrastructure financing. At the time of this writing, that work is incomplete. Pending bond acts may set up an infrastructure financing bank. Specific Research Needs Define infrastructure needs under expected levels of growth (see Socioeconomic Conditions and Changes question, page 14). Identify existing programs that support infrastructure development, and the need for additional program development. Determine the status of the state Growth Management Council regarding these issues. Develop an effective system to redistribute federal receipts. Identify alternative ap- proaches that exist or can be developed. Examples could be PILT, recreation fees, and water transfer fees. Quantify the extent to which transfer payments and service economies have replaced resource-dependent activities as sources of local income. Identify how that income has been captured for reinvestment in the community, and the circumstances in which land and land-transfer taxes are used to do so. Evaluate the ways in which funding mechanisms and opportunities change by geographic area. Compare areas with virtually no income from timber receipts to those where timber harvest levels are relatively high. Identify state and federal funding sources available to help meet restoration and enhancement needs, and strategies to access them. Research Topic ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION. What opportunities exist for economic divers- ification within the changing economic base? How can the public and private sectors facilitate, promote, and support sustainable economic development? What opportunities exist for cooperative enterprise, joint ventures, and partnerships? Background Economic and environmental issues in the Sierra are integrally linked, because the economy depends on the environment and because our understanding of how the environment works can change how we use its resources to support our economy. One of today's major issues is the reduction in timber harvest levels over the past five years, which is forcing counties to investigate alternatives for sustaining local jobs. Other states, such as Oregon, are proactive and explicit in fostering economic diversification strategies. The state Rural Competitiveness Strategy, recently issued by the California Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), addressed some of these issues, and recent studies have investigated alternatives to existing economic base activities. Sierra Summit recommendations included a charge to the state Legislature and state Department of Commerce (now the Trade and Commerce Agency) to assist local communities in economic diversification, and to create financial incentives for the establishment of "value-added" or secondary industries that convert commodity natural resource products into finished commercial products. Efforts have been limited to date, although local projects have been funded by federal and other non-state resources. A state rural economic development strategy being initiated by OPR at the direction of the Legislature should provide some direction. Non resource- based diversification, often playing off the skills and capital brought by recent immigrants from urban areas, can be encouraged to foster community stability. Opportunities to diversify rather than abandon traditionally Sierran resource-based industries may include, for example, small lumber mills, manufacturing for finished wood products, orchards, recreational development, restoration activities, or development of traditional Native American activities. Assistance at the state level includes the Senate Office of Research, which is investigating economic and environmental sustainability issues associated with economic conversion, and the Assembly Natural Resources Committee. Recreation and tourism provide a significant number of jobs in the Sierra, and contribute vitally to the economy. Additional recreation-based economic development may be a suitable mechanism to diversify the economy, particularly in locations where resource extraction potential is limited. In the eastern Sierra Nevada, recreation plays a critical role in the local economy. Recently, several organizations have begun to develop models to investigate how recreation, economic development, and resource protection can be provided simultaneously. Examples include CURES, the Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra, or the Tahoe Coalition of Recreation Providers (TCORP). Case studies may also be found through the Tahoe-Truckee Regional Economic Coalition, Sierra Economic Development District, Plumas County Chamber of Commerce and Plumas Corporation, the Mono Lake Committee, and studies of Yosemite gateway communities. A great deal of recreation-related literature exists as well. However, from the perspectives of biologists or planners, very little addresses both resource protection and recreation development, or the impacts of recreation on natural resources. Specific Research Needs Define economically feasible alternatives to replace job losses from resource-extraction activities, such as development of value-added wood products, and increased recreation or entrepreneurial activities. Examine ways to encourage their development while conserving biodiversity and environmental values. Determine how an economically viable local milling and forest products industry can survive under policies that call for sustainable-yield logging and protection of ancient forests and other critical resources. Determine a pace at which communities can accommodate job and employment changes resulting from changes in planning and policy. Characterize the beneficial and adverse effects from different patterns of economic diversification. Evaluate how county, state, and federal policies influence patterns of diversification. Identify economic opportunities for recreation development in the Sierra Nevada, including cooperative enterprise and partnerships. Delineate potential roles for private enterprise and public agencies in providing recreation. Evaluate the impacts of recreation on natural resources, infrastructure, services, public health, and safety. Determine the effects on local employment, economic benefits, and opportunities. Determine how many people can be supported by existing recreation resources, both in terms of services (number of hotel rooms) and sensitivity of the resource (human impact on the ecosystem). Assess the ability of recreation development to pay for itself. Research Topic RESOURCE EXTRACTION/EXPORTS. How and why do economic values of water and other commodities in the forest vary throughout the Sierra? What are the upstream and downstream values and costs of water? What are the values and costs of other commodities? Background Costs of commodities are related both to the direct costs of the resource extraction or delivery, and to the non-commodity costs, including, for example, habitat value and water quality. These costs are either lost or are recovered through commodity prices and/or subsidies. One component of this question is an understanding of the real costs (including externalized costs) of extraction and transfers of commodity resources in general, and of water in particular. Economic values of water in the forest vary throughout the Sierra, in proportion to elevation, capacity of downstream hydroplants, and the feasibility of capturing water for distribution to consumptive users. Water exports are the most complex of the resource extraction/export issues, due to pricing structures, dependence of urban and agricultural uses outside of the Sierra on the resource, efforts to manipulate the watershed conditions to increase water yield, and the difficulty in predicting the timing and quantity of water available for transfer (see also Surface Water Management question, page 25). Specific Research Needs Define relationships between geographic locations and the values of water and other commodities. Determine the proportions of the various commodities that are represented in the local economies. Determine whether costs of water and other commodities are accurately reflected in prices, considering the internal and external costs of delivery. Determine how un- certainty in water availability affects pricing. Characterize the circumstances in which upstream-downstream agreements on water transfers tend to be formed and sustained. Describe how this affects forest management decisions. Determine costs and benefits of efforts to increase water yields and manipulate watershed conditions, and whether economic values to downstream users reflect those costs and benefits. ECOSYSTEM STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION Research Topic BIODIVERSITY AND DISTURBANCE. How do biodiversity, ecosystem structure, and ecological processes contribute to the health or decline of Sierra Nevada ecosystems? What parameters can serve as indicators? What is the role of disturbance in ecosystem structure, function, and sustainability? What are the ranges of natural variation of thresholds and carrying capacity? What is the appropriate balance between reserves or corridors of protected lands versus lands managed for use or resource extraction, to ensure maintenance of biodiversity? Background The Sierra Nevada will require careful management so that we do not damage the resources permanently. We need to establish biological thresholds indicating levels of environmental concern or change, and determine a carrying capacity for different levels of economic use. Understanding the carrying capacity and environmental thresholds is essential to gaining a better understanding of how the overall ecosystem works, and the factors that influence its health or decline. Identification of carrying capacities, biological thresholds, and natural disturbance regimes may be useful in developing a system of comparative analysis and risk management across the Sierra, recognizing both similarities and differences in: (a) activities and their impacts; (b) resource quality and availability; and (c) ownership needs. To some extent, these are the questions that the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) is addressing. Determining thresholds necessarily involves analyzing baseline conditions and establishing monitoring systems (see General Guidelines for Research Approaches, pages 3-4, and Impact Assessment and Monitoring, pages 24-34), in order to identify standards and conditions for environmentally sound economic activities and land uses by subarea of the Sierra. Furthermore, we must investigate how natural systems recover from disturbance. Sierra Nevada biological communities have developed under long-term processes of disturbance such as natural and human-influenced fire, vegetation manipulation (pre- and post-European settlement), and disease. Eliminating natural disturbances in general, and fire in particular, has caused unanticipated and undesirable changes to the ecosystem. Better knowledge of ecosystem structure and function is necessary to better understand how natural disturbance processes can be mimicked through innovative management. This understanding can also assist us in anticipating the effects of management disturbances resulting from our commodity extraction and production activities. Specific Research Needs Identify effective indicators to assess health or decline of the ecosystem, and the major processes critical to the maintenance of ecosystem stability and integrity. Determine ways to mimic these essential processes to sustain managed ecosystem integrity with resource production in the ecosystem. Define a "sustained yield" for various commodity extraction activities that allows for habitat values. Determine components of "sustained yield." Define acceptable levels of growth, considering threshold levels or carrying capacity. Identify and measure parameters that adequately characterize ecosystem status, and compare with SNEP findings. Identify thresholds and components of biodiversity and ecosystem structure for both the terrestrial and watershed systems. Define ranges of use between "totally managed" and "totally preserved" lands, and characterize recovery from disturbed conditions in those ranges. Identify corridors that allow wildlife to move between reserve units (see also Road Density and Landscape Fragmentation, page 30). Identify types of management or land uses that can be allowed while still providing this linkage. Determine if Native American disturbance activities (fire, vegetation management) are relevant to current management activities. Determine the effects of changes in these activities on Sierra Nevada natural resources. Research Topic HISTORICAL ASSESSMENTS. How do natural processes change the ecosystem over time? What are the implications of long-term environmental variability for management policies? Develop an historical, archeological, and paleoecological assessment of baseline versus current conditions in the Sierra Nevada to improve understanding of ecosystem evolution. Background A primary goal in environmental management is to sustain natural ecosystem structure and function. We know, however, that ecosystems are dynamic. Rather than develop a static "snapshot" view of ecosystems, we must define the range of variability for selected characteristics. Historical and paleoecological studies provide the means to develop this understanding. In particular, these types of studies are very useful in assessing ecosystem recovery from both natural and human, particularly pre-European, disturbances. Historical assessments can provide insights into management techniques that could be used today, and may suggest ways to sustain the Native American culture as well. Since lakes integrate watershed processes (via the continual hydrologic transport of sediments, nutrients, and organic matter), they provide a unique opportunity to evaluate ecosystem recovery from stress. Specific Research Needs Catalog in a database all photographs that can be used to address the research questions identified in this report. Group the photographs by ecological and topo- graphic criteria. Catalog all primary literature sources and firsthand sources, including statements from longtime Sierra residents, that provide historical descriptions of Sierra Nevada flora and fauna, and that describe characteristics and geographical extent of specific habitat types. Expand fire scar analysis and meadow/bog core sampling so that the spatial extent of various plant communities and fire regimes can be estimated. Conduct dendrochronology (tree-ring) analyses, along with biomass-stable isotope analyses, which allow for an interpretation of hydrologic cycles (e.g., wet versus dry conditions, temperature variations) over the past 500-1,000 years. Collect and analyze deep lake sediment cores for paleoclimatic, chemical, isotopic, and biological parameters to evaluate long-term changes and historical background characteristics of plant and animal plankton species composition, deposited pollen, and inorganic sediment particles. Assess the functional relationship(s) between historic hydrologic conditions and erosion/nutrient loading as affected by watershed vegetation. Research Topic WATERSHED FUNCTION. How do urbanization, land disturbance, and erosion affect watershed function and the hydrologic system? Background Environmental management at the watershed scale is now being acknowledged as effective by regulatory and resource agencies. Because of links between hydrology and pollutant transport, and the fact that watershed boundaries are defined by local hydrology, the concept of watershed function has traditionally been closely aligned with water quality issues (see also Surface Water Management, page 25). It is well known that land disturbance within a watershed can have a profound influence on the transport of nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants to downstream water bodies via erosion. This phenomenon can result in increased eutrophication, impairment of stream benthic habitat by siltation, and potential toxicity to resident biota. Erosional loss of sediments also affects biogeochemical cycling and can lead to land instability and/or loss of nutrient-rich soils. Because field sampling is very expensive, existing data documenting erosion rates and nutrient loss are limited, despite the need for data suggested by the high erosion rates revealed in some studies. Understanding the relationships between land disturbance, urbanization, and watershed function is key to developing and implementing effective land use, erosion control, and environmental restoration policies. With the increased use and urbanization of the Sierra Nevada for residential and commercial purposes, land disturbance and its attendant problems become more widespread. Such change highlights the need to couple scientific understanding of the effects of urbanization on watershed function to the formulation of land use policies. Moreover, an improved understanding of watershed function will be required to ensure that financial resources expended for erosion control and watershed restoration measures are effective. Specific Research Needs Assess the scope, accessibility, and utility of existing data bases on watershed condition. Document historic and current rates of soil loss, and identify the factors that contribute to increased soil loss and stream sedimentation. Determine the effects of watershed activities performed in cycles, such as timber harvest rotations, and activities that are repeated, such as winter recreation, on the components of the watershed (vegetation, soils, water quality, aquatic habitat). Evaluate differences in watershed responses, including areas exhibiting both poor and healthy regeneration, or streams whose channels are unaffected and significantly altered after harvest. Assess the effectiveness of erosion control "best management practices" (BMPs) currently in use. Define time scales for watershed disturbance and watershed function recovery from disturbance. Determine the capacity of forest, riparian, and wetland habitats to buffer against deposition of sediments, nutrients, and other pollutants to streams and lakes. Identify and quantify the effects of roadways as sources and conduits for sediment and nutrient transport, and develop meaningful correlations with stream sediment data. Identify what roadway characteristics and construction techniques or local conditions contribute to or minimize hillslope erosion and stream sedimentation. Survey and map the incidence of significant watershed disturbance in the Sierra Nevada. Identify restoration, enhancement needs and potential in the Sierra Nevada. Evaluate the effectiveness of stream and watershed restoration/enhancement projects in relation to erosion control, aquatic and riparian habitat, and watershed function. Identify additional management options that can be taken to restore Sierra Nevada watersheds. Determine obstacles to action and current scope of activities for responsible state and federal agencies. Determine if planning at the watershed level, as opposed to the bioregional level, is the most effective and politically acceptable planning level for restoration purposes. Identify institutional obstacles to planning at the most effective level. Develop a protocol for combining results of scientific studies with planning decisions. Research Topic GROUND WATER. What is the condition of ground water quantity and quality in the Sierra Nevada? What are the relationships between surface and ground water in the protection of aquifers for present and future uses? Background Ground water quality and quantity are major concerns statewide. In the Sierra, the issue is a concern primarily in urbanizing areas and in drier east side drainages where surface water is limited. Degraded ground water quality primarily affects public health and agriculture, via potential violations of drinking water standards and recommended criteria for irrigation and livestock use. Since numerical objectives have been established for both these purposes, evaluation of the resource is theoretically possible. Similarly, engineering hydrology methods are available for determining available volumes of ground water. Human and natural influences on ground water, and the effect of this resource on beneficial uses, are an expressed concern in certain regions of the Sierra Nevada. Moreover, the availability and quality of ground water may also affect the extent and quality of wetland habitat. This is particularly relevant for the eastern Sierra. Specific Research Needs Determine the extent and geographic distribution of contaminated wells/aquifers, defined as those exceeding state and federal water quality criteria, using existing data. Identify specific contaminants that exceed criteria and determine the most likely sources and opportunities to improve conditions. Analyze data to determine if ground water contamination in the Sierra Nevada is localized or a widespread phenomenon. Define the role of agricultural drainage, mining, natural geology, and industrial/urban pollution in ground water contamination. Define wellhead protection zones and land use restrictions, if necessary to protect the integrity of an aquifer. Collate existing data on ground water quantity in the Sierra Nevada to identify those areas where urbanization may be limited by ground water availability. Identify watershed practices that adversely affect ground water recharge. IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND MONITORING Research Topic LAND CLASSIFICATION. Identify locations and extent of management problems, high-risk hazard areas, public and private ownership, and land management policies. Develop a usable land classification and assessment system from the data that is linked to a computerized database or geographic information system. Background One of the keys to effective scientific research in the Sierra is the link between data and the regulatory systems governing land ownership, land use activities, and public infrastructure. Information dissemination is a critical part of that link. On a region- wide basis, a common land use classification system used or recognized by all land planning/management agencies would facilitate coordination of land and resource management, cultural and social information sharing, and hazard avoidance or response (including issues related to avalanche, debris flow, wildfire, access roads, and trans-Sierra access in winter), particularly if the data were electronically accessible and regularly updated. A coordinated land use classification and geographic information system (GIS) that combines resource information with land use regulations can: (1) provide an effective means of interagency information sharing (see also Planning and Management Decision Making, pages 11-14); (2) indicate necessary development and use constraints; (3) assist in assessment of cumulative impacts; and (4) lead to definitions of carrying capacity for regions (see also Biodiversity and Disturbance, page 20). One focus of the Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (SNEP) is the development of a pilot mapping and analysis project. Any GIS developed as part of this research program should incorporate information gained from the SNEP. Specific Research Needs Review classification systems and GIS already available and in use. Evaluate the suitability of available information layers and the technical and economic feasibility of filling gaps or of developing information that is more representative of existing conditions. Investigate ways to ensure the affordability, accessibility, and compatibility of GIS for use by a range of agencies and both large and small communities. Evaluate the feasibility and utility of using a single, comprehensive map as an all- around planning tool. Develop a protocol to ensure that policy makers have access to a family of maps. Evaluate the feasibility and utility of publishing maps that can be widely used by different agencies, encouraging interagency consistency. Research Topic SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT. How do our management activities affect quantity and quality of surface water? What changes need to be made in surface water management to ensure the integrity of the resource? How can cumulative watershed impacts be assessed? Background Surface waters (lakes, streams, and reservoirs) provide crucial benefits to both humans and wildlife, and are managed for both quality and quantity. The Sierra supplies approximately 50% of the state's water supply, yet a relatively small portion of monitoring takes place in the region. Demand is great for drinking water and agricultural water, and in general, water bodies in the Sierra Nevada are highly sensitive to environmental damage. Management of these resources occurs at several levels, including municipal, county, state, and federal. Management and use of surface water directly and indirectly affects watershed function (see Watershed Function, page 22). Because the demand for water continues to grow, agencies responsible for managing Sierra watersheds, particularly the U. S. Forest Service, are under substantial pressure to find ways to increase the annual water yield from existing watersheds, and to delay the yield into the high-demand months. The potential impacts of attempts to increase water yields are not well understood. In addition, cumulative impacts are occurring in watersheds throughout the Sierra as a result of many land and water activities, including timber harvest, grazing, mining, water development, recreation, road building, and urban development. The methods currently employed to predict water yield and cumulative watershed effects (CWE) from forest management practices include a number of theoretical models that are not generally tested with or calibrated against field data. Furthermore, no general model exists for integrating the effects of different activities in a CWE analysis. Specific Research Needs Evaluate the missions and objectives of the various water resource agencies for consistency, and develop recommendations to better coordinate and integrate management goals. Coordinate collection, scientific evaluation, and dissemination of lake and stream water quality assessment data. Develop methods for connecting processes on land with effects in water (see also Watershed Function, page 22). For example, determine statistical relationships between natural, geomorphic characteristics of watersheds, characteristics of urbanization, and sediment and nutrient load to receiving waters. Determine the effects of upstream riparian and watershed manipulations, such as stream bank stabilization and other restoration methods, or vegetation management, on water yields and timing, water quality, overall ecosystem health, and the economic values to downstream users. Develop a comprehensive index to assess watershed and stream "health" including fisheries, benthic communities, and aquatic biodiversity, to identify priorities for preservation, restoration, or management intervention. Initiate long-term monitoring in key Sierra watersheds to determine periods and locations of degradation, recovery, or stability over long periods. Identify monitoring that is currently being conducted, and determine if modification of monitoring methods is necessary. Determine whether there are applications for information already gathered, or necessary modifications of existing data collection and monitoring. Determine whether standardized monitoring of watersheds among agencies is feasible to produce meaningful, comparable, and defensible results. Determine whether volunteers can conduct accurate watershed monitoring using agreed-upon techniques. Establish a protocol, train volunteers, and test their work with a control. Evaluate reliability of results. Determine validity of "threshold of concern" criteria presently being used by the U. S. Forest Service. Evaluate how they are measured, how they are used to affect future decisions in a watershed, and whether they are effective and useful for decision making. Examine the environmental impact assessment methods of state and federal agencies to determine possible inconsistencies and gaps. Evaluate the consistency and adequacy of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) analysis methods, and refine models, if necessary. Begin field collection of data to test existing CWE analysis and calibrate with field data. Develop methods to improve predictions of water yield. Identify limitations of current models and calibrate with field data. Assess the impacts of efforts to increase water yield for downstream uses. Develop scalable impact assessment methods through which analyses of smaller drainages can be integrated into large-scale basin analyses. Identify limitations of the applications. Evaluate potential changes in gravel mining regulations and establishment of incentives to accommodate the need for aggregate while minimizing bed and bank erosion and protecting riparian resources. Assess potential changes in reservoir operations to protect instream resources while providing water to downstream users. Evaluate water and bottom sediment quality in the major foothill reservoirs. Evaluate rates of reservoir capacity loss due to watershed erosion and other activities in alpine and subalpine watersheds. Assess alternative management strategies. Determine losses of biodiversity in aquatic habitats due to long-term single- or few- species management for native and non-native game fish. Research Topic AIR QUALITY. What are the impacts of local and transported air pollution, including acid precipitation, fog, ozone, and smoke, on the hydrologic system, vegetation, and wildlife? How can the existing monitoring system be improved? Background Air quality in the Sierra Nevada has degraded to the point that human health is now threatened. Poor air quality also has the potential to degrade recreational resources, vegetation, watershed function, and overall ecosystem health. Many of the mechanisms of pollutant transport into the Sierra Nevada ecosystem from coastal population centers and agricultural regions of the Central Valley, where most of the pollutants originate, have been documented. Pollutant levels are often higher in the Sierra Nevada than they are at their sources outside of the Sierra. Simultaneously, airborne pollutants within the Sierra Nevada are generated at local population centers, such as Yosemite Valley and Lake Tahoe, and in regions where wind-blown soils from dry lake beds, such as Mono Lake and Owens Lake, result in degraded air quality. Smoke is an additional source of air quality degradation. There are three major sources of smoke in the Sierra Nevada range: natural and managed forest fires, resi- dential/commercial/industrial wood burning, and smoke transported into the mountains from other areas, particularly the Central Valley. There is abundant data on the gross violations of air quality standards in wildfires. However, data are sparse for controlled fires and for point sources such as wood stoves, and often do not accurately reflect the ambient air quality. Complex topography also hinders effective monitoring. Furthermore, recent studies have shown that federal and state air quality standards, designed for urban areas, are not adequate to protect Sierra resources. Impacts of air quality degradation include: acid rain, ozone injury to forests and other vegetation, visibility reduction, and lake eutrophication. Specific Research Needs Document the status and distribution of air quality problems and trends in mapped or GIS form (see also Land Classification, page 24). Identify indicators of air pollution in the Sierra Nevada that can be routinely quantified and that provide numerical measures of air quality. Review adequacy of air quality monitoring stations, including the distribution, constituents measured, and methods of measure. Assess the importance of pollutants generated outside the Sierra relative to those produced within the ecoregion. Quantify the relative contribution of each source to Sierra Nevada air pollution. Evaluate the effects of prescribed burns on air quality to determine burning strategies, such as altering timing, that minimize adverse air quality impacts. Quantify the control costs versus air quality costs and benefits of various prescribed burning strategies. Determine the contribution of wood burning stoves and automobile exhaust to overall air pollution and environmental damage. Determine the extent to which pesticide residue from atmospheric transport already affects biota and human populations in the Sierra Nevada. Identify educational needs for the general public as well as for decision-makers statewide to highlight the role of locally- and externally-produced air pollution on the Sierra Nevada ecoregion. Identify limitations of existing air quality standards for the Sierra Nevada ecosystem, and develop standards addressing conditions in the Sierra Nevada. Improve understanding of ozone production, transport, and deposition state-wide, with particular emphasis on the role of natural meteorological patterns and events. Compile existing data on acid deposition, distribution of acid-sensitive lakes, and observed impacts. Determine the role of atmospheric deposition in the eutrophication of Sierra Nevada lakes. Estimate the roles of unvegetated and disturbed lands in the production of air pollutants (dust) and in the loss of CO2 uptake capacity. Determine the mechanisms by which watershed vegetation and soil trap air pollutants and act as a buffer for pollutants entering streams. Determine the extent to which air pollution contributes to cumulative stress on Sierra Nevada biota. Determine the concentrations of airborne pollutants in water that recharges surface and ground water supplies. Research Topic VEGETATION MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT. Develop a system for evaluating vegetation conditions, both for project-level planning and for assessing overall changes to the resource. Background Because of the fundamental role played by vegetation in supporting animal com- munities, defining ecological habitat, and providing a renewable resource, vegetation maps are a cornerstone for resource utilization models and development of policy in the Sierra Nevada. Unless these maps are produced in an unbiased and scientifically defensible manner, resource management decisions made on the basis of these maps will be open to question. Criteria used to inventory vegetation may be influenced by the desired purpose of the map. Specific Research Needs Conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature to determine "tried-and- true" as well as "state-of-the art" techniques for large-scale vegetation inventory. Survey individuals or groups that routinely employ these techniques to further ascertain advantages and disadvantages of each approach. Develop additional large-scale mapping techniques, such as remote sensing or collection of accurate "ground-truth" data (see also Land Classification, page 24). Identify any bias that may exist in the technique selection process, and make recommendations for the most robust techniques applicable to the Sierra Nevada ecoregion. Develop techniques to create a comprehensive vegetation inventory. In addition to an overall vegetation map, specific distributional maps are needed for a variety of subcategories, such as: sensitive plants, late-successional forests, logging practices and fire damage, special plant communities (including aspen and cottonwood), and relative health and historic change in health of vegetative communities. Determine the areal extent of vegetation damage resulting from ozone injury (see Air Quality, page 27); identify species or plant communities that are particularly susceptible to damage; evaluate damage to the ecosystem; and assess plant recovery in order to improve the understanding of the biology and ecology of ozone injury. Research Topic WILDLIFE MONITORING AND ASSESSMENT. Evaluate the current wildlife habitat modeling and monitoring database, Wildlife Habitat Relationships (WHR), to improve the model or suggest alternative approaches. Background When evaluating current conditions or considering desired outcomes for a landscape, one of the principal concerns is to evaluate the quality of the landscape in terms of a variety of wildlife species. The primary tool to date is the WHR database, developed by the state of California. WHR is based on presence/absence data for more than 600 species in broad habitat categories. There are many weaknesses in this system, including: (1) classifications that are too broad; (2) presence/absence classifications that have little to do with actual quality; and (3) lack of a spatial component, because all habitat blocks are considered equal regardless of their size and degree of isolation. Specific Research Needs Develop a more sophisticated vegetation classification system to associate with future WHR models (see also Land Classification, page 24, and Vegetation Monitoring and Assessment, page 29). Develop models that are linked to species presence and habitat quality, based on specific needs of the organism. Develop numerical and statistical relationships that address, for a given species, the quality of a block of habitat based on its size and location within the landscape. Research Topic ROAD DENSITY AND LANDSCAPE FRAGMENTATION. What are the impacts of road density and landscape fragmentation resulting >from road construction, urban development, logging, and water development, as well as human population pressures on wildlife, watersheds, vegetation, riparian systems, and water quality? Background Wildlife populations are dependent on the availability of habitat in suitable sizes and distributions (see also Wildlife Monitoring and Assessment, page 29). Road construction, urban development, timber harvest, and water development can result in fragmentation of the habitat, which effectively degrades habitat quality. This problem is particularly acute for migrating wildlife or species that require large core areas of undisturbed habitat. Deer populations, for example, have plummeted with increased development in the Sierra. Evaluate changes that have occurred in wildlife populations and road density by comparing several large watersheds over a time sequence from wildland and unroaded, to a dense road network. Determine whether the changes are correlated. Evaluate the benefits of seasonal road closures on wildlife populations. Determine whether human population densities adversely affect wildlife population distributions. Develop acceptable mechanisms for reducing the impact of expanding human population pressure on wildlife populations. Determine what role wildlife corridors play, and where they may be needed to enhance wildlife movement. Research Topic EXTERNAL FACTORS/COMMODITY PRODUCTION. How does external use of and/or demands for Sierra Nevada resources influence commodity production pressures? What are the ecological effects of commodity resource production in the Sierra Nevada? Can the impacts of external demand be predicted or modeled, and can they be mitigated? Background Livestock grazing, timber harvesting, and mining are among the commodity production activities that have long been in the Sierra Nevada's history. These activities comprise a substantial portion of the economic activity (see Socioeconomic Conditions and Changes, page 14, and Resource Extraction/Exports, page 19). Ways to mitigate the effects of these activities on the ecosystem are poorly understood. Sometimes these activities create conflicts with other management goals in the Sierra (see Surface Water Management, page 25). As the amount of land available for commodity production decreases, the pressure on remaining lands increases. Commodity resources from the Sierra Nevada are heavily used by people who live outside the boundaries of the Sierra. As the population grows in the Central Valley, coastal California, and Nevada, significantly greater demands are being made on the water, timber, minerals, forage, wildlife, and recreational resources of the mountains. As a result, both water quality and quantity are reduced, air quality is declining, and overall forest health is threatened. Congestion, high costs of living, and pollution elsewhere in the state are strong contributing factors in migration to the Sierra. Sierra Nevada residents, resource managers, and others are concerned that external demands and pressures threaten the natural environment and their quality of life. Specific Research Needs Evaluate how current range and forest condition and activity compares with historic condition and activity. Delineate the current and former extent of the land and re- source base, and the current land uses of former commodity production lands. Analyze soil and water impacts from commodity production in various Sierra sub- ecosystems. Determine how and why commodity production pressures differ across the Sierra. Determine whether commodity production activities affect threatened and endangered plant populations. Assess whether activities that are currently taking place on a small scale, such as harvesting of deer grass, bear grass, mushrooms, stonefly larvae, and ladybugs, could threaten species if activity intensifies. Determine, if possible, when a low-impact demand may become detrimental. Determine the effects of commodity production activities on the condition of riparian corridors. Map and document areas in the ecosystem where degradation has occurred due to commodity production, to determine whether a pattern to this degradation exists. Determine the conditions under which production pressures prevent reasonable regeneration of biotic and physical resources, and the conditions under which pressures are within limits that the resources can carry without loss in regenerative capacity. Develop a means to reduce negative impacts of commodity production. Identify managerial approaches that sustain resources at higher levels of pressure, as well as approaches that cause damage at low levels of pressure. Determine how market or policy conditions, or particular policies, affect commodity production pressures. Determine the dominant external uses and demands for Sierra resources, including timber and water, and estimate future levels of use and demand. Characterize other external non-use/demand factors that affect the Sierra (such as air quality), and develop models to assess or predict their impacts. Classify uses as extractive and non-extractive, and the extractive uses as renewable and non-renewable. Some uses and resources will fall into both categories; water is renewable annually but streams and rivers are non-renewable resources that disappear when dammed. Describe the scale and trends of commodity production over the past 20 years, as well as earlier periods. What baseline data exists and what needs to be collected to utilize it? Identify geographic areas or resources that are most at risk from commodity production activities, either currently or in the short term. Identify conditions and/or circumstances that have led to local innovation as a response to resource use or management conflicts. Predict future external uses and demands and impacts. Develop models, if possible, to show how future human population growth and demands outside of the Sierra, especially in the Central Valley, will affect the resources in the future. Identify areas or resources potentially at greatest risk over the long term. Identify land use and growth management policies at the state level that can mitigate or better manage negative impacts. Explain the differential impacts of external uses and demands among the geographic regions of the Sierra. Define the circumstances in which critical problems and notable successes arise. Assess the effects of state growth management and land use policies. Analyze the effects of growth in the major urban areas on the need for roads in the Sierra. Develop measures that can be taken outside of the Sierra, such as water conservation and adjustments to water pricing, to ensure that commodity production and resource protection are both in balance and are economically feasible for Sierra communities. Research Topic FIRE MANAGEMENT. What are the environmental, economic, and social impacts of natural and managed fire in the ecosystem? What are the costs of fire management? How can we model its effects to lead us to effective management decisions? Background Under natural conditions, fires periodically altered the Sierra environment. Thus, the vegetation evolved under a fire regime. Native Americans used fire extensively in their management of the landscape, and still practice some fire management today. Extensive human settlement of the Sierra necessitates some fire suppression today. Attempts to mimic natural conditions with introduced fire may result in additional environmental consequences, including degraded air quality. Sierra ecosystems vary widely, from hot and dry to cold and wet, and the fire regimes also vary accordingly. The historic (presettlement) fire regimes of the ranges of Sierra ecosystems and vegetation types, as well as the historic and current fire management techniques practiced by Native Americans, must be understood to adequately evaluate the effects of prescribed burning or fire reintroduction. Specific Research Needs Identify the ecological functions that natural fire performs in the various ecosystems of the Sierra, and the extent to which our current fire management activities perform these functions. Define the role of fire and how it has changed in the ecosystem in the last 200 years. Evaluate how fire suppression and managed fires have affected resources and ecosystem health in various vegetation types in the Sierra. Determine whether fire and vegetation management methods used by Native Americans should be reinstated, and under what conditions, to achieve today's vegetation management goals. Evaluate the effectiveness of our current fire management methods. Determine whether the management methods of various agencies with fire protection jurisdiction, such as the U.S. Forest Service, California Department of Forestry, and California Department of Parks and Recreation, are complementary, and whether the different practices of agencies are compatible. Evaluate fire management alternatives and the social, economic, and ecologic costs and benefits of alternatives. Identify the circumstances, such as different vegetation types and land allocations, under which different alternatives may be effective. Assess relationships between the costs of prescribed burning and the scale of the burn. Determine cost-effectiveness of treating a stand or a watershed. Identify surrogates for fire that may be used in the Sierra (for example, manual removal of fuels), and evaluate the potential adverse environmental impacts, as well as the effectiveness and costs compared with those for prescribed burning. Delineate the benefits from fire reintroduction and the potential savings derived from the lowered probability of catastrophic fire. Determine how spatial modeling of fire behavior and spread, burning prescriptions, and landscape conditions can improve the management planning process. Develop GIS-based spatial models that can predict fire effects on ecosystems and fire behavior and spread. Research Topic INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT. What are the environmental and growth- inducing impacts of infrastructure development such as roads, schools, water, and other utilities? How and where should infrastructure be developed? Background Infrastructure needs are based on projected levels of growth (see also Financing Rural Services, page 17). Besides determining future needs for development of infra- structure, however, we should be investigating the environmental impacts of infrastructure development. Often infrastructure development has very severe environmental impacts, such as the impact of dams on the salmon populations. Also related to infrastructure are services and issues of hazard prevention and response, particularly avalanche and debris flow hazards, volcanic hazards, and wildfires. Most services that support both urban and suburban development cannot be installed incrementally. Thus, infrastructure development is generally installed with a capacity beyond the existing demand, which has a tendency to induce additional growth. Impacts often extend beyond the local community. For example, new roadways can spur growth in adjacent areas. Road development in particular tends to influence development throughout the Sierra region, and growth inevitably follows road construction. Thus, decisions about new highway locations are, in effect, decisions about where growth will be allowed. Water development decisions also significantly affect the local environment (see also Watershed Function and Surface Water Management, pages 22 and 25). Some impacts, such as hazardous waste management, comprise a larger statewide problem that are not completely understood. Specific Research Needs Evaluate the adverse biological and environmental impacts, induced impacts, and cumulative impacts of infrastructure development. Identify ways to reduce these impacts. Identify useful locations for infrastructure development, and develop incentives to encourage development in the areas of least impact. Identify and analyze the factors that influence how much growth, especially strip commercial development, occurs as a result of road construction. Develop ways to accommodate existing pressure on roads, including trans-Sierra winter access, without inducing more growth or causing additional landscape fragmentation. Determine how much and what type of growth occurs >from road construction. Identify areas that should be protected from road construction and develop ways to protect those areas where there is a need to construct new roads. Evaluate the cumulative and statewide impacts of regional road building. Evaluate problems in hazardous/non-hazardous waste management and legal implications. Identify effects on local communities and environments of water development projects and changes in dam operations. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alpine County Board of Supervisors. 1993. Position Paper: Alpine County forest land findings and recommendations of the board of supervisors. Alpine County Forest Lands Advisory Committee. 1992. Forests in crisis: eastern Alpine County: a report by the Alpine County Forest Lands Advisory Committee. September. Anderson, Kat. 1993. Indian fire-based management in the sequoia-mixed conifer forests of the central and southern Sierra Nevada. Final report submitted to Yosemite Research Center, Yosemite National Park. Coop. Agreement No. 8027-2-002. July 15. Anderson, M. Kat. 1990. California Indian horticulture. Fremontia. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 7-14. April. Anderson, M. Kat. 1993. The mountains smell like fire. Fremontia. Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 15-20. October. Beatley, T., and D. Brower. 1993. Sustaining communities. The Surface Transportation Policy Project Bulletin. Vol. III, No. 7. September 1993. Belzer, D. and C. Kroll. 1986. New Jobs for the Timber Region: Economic Diversification for Northern California. Institute for Governmental Studies. University of California, Berkeley. Blackburn, Thomas C., and Kat Anderson. 1993. Before the Wilderness: Environmental Management by Native Californians. Anthropological Papers No. 40. Ballena Press, Novato, CA. Burwell, D. 1993. What is sustainable transportation? The Surface Transportation Policy Project Bulletin. Vol. III, No. 7. Sept. 1993. California Indian Basketweavers Association Newsletter. Nos. 3, 6, June 1993, April 1994. Nevada City, CA. California Research Bureau. 1993. Background brief on forests in California. July 22. Carver, Richard L. 1993. Nye County (NV) Board of Supervisors. Memorandum to Robert Miller, Bruce Babbitt, Michael Espy, Jim Baca, and David Unger, regarding public land and other matters. November 5. Center for the New West. 1993. Lone Eagle Project. Unpublished. Denver, CO. Combs, Samuel T., and Donna S. Lindquist. 1992. Modeling watershed management for water augmentation. Water Resources Bulletin. November. Duane, Timothy P. 1993. Managing the Sierra Nevada. In Kirlin, John J., editor. California policy choices. University of Southern California School of Public Administration. Sacramento, CA. Economic and Planning Systems. 1993. Sierra Region economic profiles. Report prepared for The Wilderness Society. Berkeley, CA. July. Feather River Coordinated Resources Management. 1994. Ongoing loss of water retention capability in the upper Feather River Watershed. Information sheet. January 26. GIS Bulletin. Sierra Planning Organization, 560 Wall Street, Suite K, Auburn, CA 95603. Governor's Task Force on Rural Competitiveness. 1993. Rural California's challenges and opportunities. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. December 15. Hamilton, Joan. 1993. Streams of hope: a recession brings pain, but also renewal, to Plumas County, California. Sierra. September/October. Hayward, William C. 1993. United States federal land: its origin, disposal, retention and present treatment: a historical review. Unpublished. Hillyard, Chester, 1993. Lyon County (NV) Board of Commissioners. Memorandum to Kathy Lucich, Bridgeport Ranger Station, USFS, regarding public lands management by Lyon County, including Lyon County Ordinance #382. October 8. Holland, John. 1993. Dam for Clayvey criticized. Union Democrat, Sonora, CA. November 30. Humbach, John A. 1989. Law and a new land ethic. Minnesota Law Review Foundation. Vol. 74, No. 2, pp. 339- 370. December. Humbach, John A. No date. Model existing-use zoning ordinance for a rural township. Pace University School of Law. White Plains, New York. Unpublished. Humbach, J. A. No date. Private property and community rights: what communities can still do after Lucas. Pace University School of Law. White Plains, New York. Unpublished. Humbach, John A. 1992a. Defending the American land. Audubon. May-June 1992. Humbach, John A. 1992b. Existing-use zoning. In Zoning News, Planning. December. Jackson, Robert J., with Thomas L. Jackson, Charles Miksicek, Kristina Roper, and Dwight Simons, 1994. Framework for archaeological research and management on the national forests of the north central Sierra Nevada. Biosystems Analysis, Inc. Prepared for USDA Forest Service, El Dorado National Forest, April. Johnston, R. A., and M. E. Madison. 1991. Planning for habitat protection in California: state policies and county actions to implement CEQA through improved general plans. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP), Sacramento, CA. Johnston, R. A., and B. Pedersen. 1989. Air pollution, Transportation Policy and Growth Control in the Lake Tahoe Region. Division of Environmental Studies. University of California, Davis. Johnston, R. A., and S. I. Schwartz. 1980. A Bibliography of Open Space Control Literature, including Regulatory, Compensatory and Taxation Devices. Vance Bibliographies, Monticello, Ill. King, James, R. 1993. Applied Development Economics. Testimony to Governor's Task Force on Rural Competitiveness. October 27. King, James R. 1993. Applied Development Economics. Opportunities for economic growth in rural California. Presentation to the Grass Valley/Nevada City Chamber of Commerce. November 30. Knudson, T. 1991. Majesty and tragedy: the Sierra in Peril. The Sacramento Bee. June. Kondolf, G. M., and W. V. G. Matthews. 1993. Management of Coarse Sediment on Regulated Rivers. California Water Resources Center Report No. 80. University of California, Davis. October. Kusler, J. A., editor. 1991. Ecotourism and resource conservation: a collection of papers. Ecotourism and Resource Conservation Project. Ortiz, Bev, editor. 1992. California Indian Basketweavers gathering, June 28-30, 1991. News from Native California, Special Supplement. Winter 1991/1992. Ortiz, Bev, editor. 1993. Pesticides and basketry. News from Native California. Summer 1993. Parsons, D.J. 1993. Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks. Memorandum to Deputy Director, National Biological Survey, regarding conceptual proposal for a Sierra Nevada Institute for Ecosystem Research. December 10. Ponce, Victor M. 1989. Baseflow augmentation by streambank storage: literature review and annotated bibliography. Prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Department of Research and Development, San Ramon. August. Ponce, Victor M., and Donna S. Lindquist. 1990. Management of baseflow augmentation: a review. Water Resources Bulletin. Vol. 26, No. 2. April. Project 88, Senators Tim Wirth (CO) and John Hynes (PA), with Robert Stavins: economic incentives. Rqeid, Bill. 1993. Sierra Nevada Research Project. Bridgeport, CA. Unpublished. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project. 1994. Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project progress report. University of California, Davis. May. Sierra Summit. 1991. The human environment: summary statements prepared for the Sierra Summit, November 17-18, 1991. Statements by T. Bradshaw, R. Twiss, B. McMahon, P. Kelly, and J. Romm. Sierra Summit. 1991. The natural environment: summary statements prepared for the Sierra Summit, November 17-18, 1991. Statements by R.R. Curry, T. A. Cahill, D. J. Parsons, D. M. Graber, J. Norton, and E. Pister. Sierra Summit Steering Committee. 1992. The Sierra Nevada: report of the Sierra Summit Steering Committee. The Resources Agency of California. Sacramento, CA. July. Stewards of the Range. No date. A synopsis of Hage v. United States, a landmark property rights case in United States Supreme Court. Stewart, W. C. 1993. Predicting employment impacts of changing forest management in California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Forest and Rangeland Resources Assessment Program (FRRAP). Sacramento, CA. Swickard, Deane. 1994. Area Manager, U.S. Bureau of Land Management. An experiment in alternative public forest planning and management. Presentation before the Nevada County Board of Supervisors. April 4. Union Democrat. 1993. Series on the timber industry of Tuolumne County, Sonora, CA. October 25-28. Union Democrat. 1993. Emigrant study to be topic. Sonora, CA. December 3. U.S. Forest Service. 1994. Draft Region 5 Ecosystem Management Guidebook 3 Volumes. February. Vandenberg, Paul. 1982. Free to grow: effects of herbicides on Native Americans. California Governor's Office of Planning and Research. February 4 (draft). Wills, L. A grass roots perspective: Feather River Coordinated Resource Management. Plumas Corporation, Quincy, CA. Unpublished. Wilson, R. A. 1993. Yes, Californians, you need to sustain your forestlands. CDF Comment. July. Wilson, R. A. 1993. California watersheds--natural resource and community integrators. CDF Comment. August. APPENDIX APPENDIX A SIERRA NEVADA RESEARCH PLANNING TEAM MEMBERS Don C. Erman* (X) Director, Wildland Resources Center University of California, Davis Janet Parrish (X) Team Coordinator Wildland Resources Center University of California, Davis Henry Alden (P) Michigan-California Lumber Co. Camino Laurel Ames (P) Sierra Nevada Alliance South Lake Tahoe Art Baggett (P) Supervisor, Mariposa County Michael Barbour* (S) Dept. of Plant Biology University of California, Davis Rex Bloomfield (P,I) Supervisor, Placer County Thomas Cahill (S) Crocker Nuclear Laboratory University of California, Davis Deborah Elliot-Fisk* (S) Natural Reserve System University of California Nancy Erman (S) Wildlife and Fisheries Biology University of California, Davis Bob Ewing (X) Ca. Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection Lenny Gallegos (P,I) Supervisor, Sierra County Charles Goldman (S) Division of Environmental Studies University of California, Davis Bob Gracey (P) Supervisor, Inyo County Caroline Haigh (X) The Resources Agency State of California Bob Heald (P) California Board of Forestry Jack Hess (SW) Desert Research Institute Water Resources Center University of Nevada, Las Vegas Jack Ives (S) Dept. of Geography University of California, Davis Patricia Kelly (SW) California Association for Local Economic Development Don Lancaster (S) University of California Cooperative Extension Andrea Lawrence (P) Supervisor, Mono County Dennis Machida (X) California Tahoe Conservancy Kevin McKelvey (S) USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station Michael and Lillian McRay (P) Calaveras County Robert Meacher (P) Supervisor, Plumas County Connie Millar* (S) USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station Cliff Moriyama (SW,I) California Chamber of Commerce Peter Morrison (SW) Sierra Biodiversity Institute Ray Nutting (P) Supervisor, El Dorado County Terri Ann Pencovic (P) Conservation Chair, Sierra Nevada Group, Sierra Club California Dept. of Transportation District 3 Environmental Planner Bill Reid (P) Supervisor, Mono County John Reuter (S) Institute of Ecology Lake Tahoe Research Group University of California, Davis Jeff Romm (S) Dept. of Environmental Science, Policy and Management University of California, Berkeley Christine Sproul (SW) California Deputy Attorney General G.B. Tucker (P) Supervisor, Nevada County Robert Twiss (S) Dept. of Landscape Architecture University of California, Berkeley Brian West (P,I) Sierra Pacific Industries *Joint SNRP/SNEP membership P Public member S Science member SW Statewide member X Ex Officio I Inactive D. C. Erman serves as director of both SNRP and the SNEP Science Team APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF SNRP AND SNEP SIERRA NEVADA RESEARCH PLANNING (SNRP) SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEM PROJECT (SNEP) Objectives: Identify and prioritize pressing resource management issues and information needs for Sierra Nevada. Incorporate local outreach in the process. Summarize the existing state of knowledge of those issues. Formulate recommendations for development of a research administration program. Present a report summarizing the process and findings to the public in Sierra regions, the Sierra Summit Steering Committee and the Executive Council on Biodiversity. Summarize existing Sierra Nevada ecosystem information. Complete a scientific review of remaining old- growth forests. Identify the benefits humans draw from the Sierra Nevada. Make information accessible to Sierra users through a database/GIS system. After thorough assessment of existing data, develop and assess a range of alternative management strategies to maintain the health and sustainability of Sierra ecosystem while providing resources to meet human needs. Funding: California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection ($70,000). Congress ($150,000), and the balance from US Forest Service (total $7 million). Team Composition Local representatives from Sierra Counties (15 of 32 total members). Scientists familiar with Sierra issues (12 of 32). Statewide, at-large interests (5 of 32). Steering committee (6 members). One member on SNRP. Interdisciplinary science team: biological, physical, social scientists, policy, law (18 members). Three members on SNRP. Timing: 6 months (ending June 1994). 30 months (ending December 1995). APPENDIX B (continued) SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEM PROJECT SCIENCE TEAM MEMBERS Don C. Erman, Science Team Director* Wildland Resources Center University of California, Davis Michael Barbour* Dept. of Plant Biology University of California, Davis Norman Christensen Dean, School of Environment Duke University Frank Davis Dept. of Geography Univ. of California, Santa Barbara Jeff Dozier Dept. of Geography Center for Remote Sensing and Environmental Optics Univ. of California, Santa Barbara Harrison Dunning School of Law University of California, Davis Deborah Elliot-Fisk* Natural Reserve System University of California Jerry Franklin College of Forest Resources University of Washington David Graber Sequoia/Kings Canyon National Parks Norman Johnson College of Forestry Oregon State University John Menke Dept. of Agronomy and Range Science University of California, Davis Connie Millar* Institute of Forest Genetics USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station Janet Momsen Dept. of Geography University of California, Davis Peter Moyle Dept. of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology University of California, Davis Rowan Rowntree USFS Pacific Southwest Research Station John Sessions Forest Engineering Dept. Oregon State University John Tappeiner Bureau of Land Management, Corvallis, Oregon Susan Ustin Dept. of Land, Air and Water Resources University of California, Davis *Joint SNRP/SNEP membership APPENDIX C INDIVIDUALS CONTACTED DURING DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH QUESTIONS Marcia Ackerman, Zone Archaeologist, Quincy/Greenville Ranger Districts, Plumas National Forest Kat Anderson, Horticultural Ecologist/Ethnobotanist, Stockton Jeff Arthur, Dangermond Associates, Sacramento Jerry Atchison, Inyo County Planning Commission Mark Bautista, Chair, Economic Development Advisory Committee, Tuolumne Co. Airport Manager Thomas W. Beck, Botanist, Stanislaus National Forest Supervisor's Office Dena Belzer, Bay Area Economics, Berkeley Andy Benson, Vegetation management, USFS Sequoia National Forest District Office Al Bent, Inyo County Planning Commission Wendy Bertrand, Communication specialist, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Big Pine Civic Club Bishop Chamber of Commerce Vernon Bleich, California Department of Fish and Game John Brissenden, Owner, Sorensen's Resort, Hope Valley John Buckley, Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Vern Burandt, Retired, California Department of Fish and Game Scott Burns, Mono County Planning Director Larry Busby, Executive Director, Central Sierra Economic Development District Steve Calfee, Planning Director, City of Placerville California Cattlemen's Association Richard A. Chase, Research Forester/economist, USFS PSW, Riverside Peter Chamberlin, Inyo County Planning Director John Chatoian, Hydrologist, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Dave Comstock, Author and Historian Tom Conkle, Geneticist, USFS PSW Albany Jim Crane, California Forestry Association Sandi Cuneo, Calaveras County Economic Development Corporation Lynn Decker, Regional Fisheries Program Leader, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Mary DeDecker, Botanist, Inyo County Renee Denton, Range Conservationist, USFS PSW, Fresno Tim Duane, Landscape Arch./City and Reg'l Planning Depts., Univ. of Calif., Berkeley Eastern Sierra Packers Association Holly Eddinger, Fish Biologist, USFS Sequoia National Forest Supervisor's Office Al Federman, Nevada County George Ferrell, Entomologist, USFS PSW, Redding Jordan Fisher-Smith, environmental community JoAnn Fites, Botanist, USFS Eldorado National Forest Supervisor's Office Don Fullmer, Silviculturist, Sequoia National Forest Supervisor's Office Jim Gooch, Inyo County Public Works Director Terry Gorton, California Resources Agency Sara Greensfelder, Executive Director, California Indian Basket Weaver's Association Sarah Gregory, Fish biologist, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Michael Haynie, California Department of Fish and Game Lib Haraughty, District 3 CalTrans Planning Don Harkin, Yuba Watershed Institute Brent Harrington, Calaveras County Administrator Dave Harry, Genetics Unit, USFS PSW, Albany Jerry Holloway, Inyo County Planning Commission J. Humbach, Pace University School of Law, NY Independence Civic Club Inyo-Mono Fish and Game Advisory Commission Don Jacobsen, Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Sierra Nevada Group Greg James, Inyo County Water Department Director Don Jardine, Alpine County Supervisor Patrick Johnston, California State Senator Eric Jong, Alpine County Supervisor Todd Kaufman, Land Use/Growth Management Policies, California Assembly Office of Research Scott Kemp, Cattleman Robert Kennedy, Inyo County Environmental Health Director Scott Kessler, Modoc County Planning Director Jim King, Pres., Applied Development Economics/Presenter, Governor's Task Force on Rural Competitiveness Bro Kinloch, Geneticist, USFS PSW, Albany KNCO Radio, Nevada County G. Mathias Kondolf, Dept. of Landscape Architecture, University of California, Berkeley Dick Kunstman, Mariposa Janet LaBoa, Silviculturist, CASPO Coordinator, USFS Tahoe NF Supervisor's Office Lowell Landowski, Chairman, Sierra Economic Summit/OHV interest representative Bill Laudenslayer, Wildlife Biologist, USFS PSW, Fresno Jeannie Lear, Administrative Assistant, Alpine County Matthew Lechner, Fish Biologist, USFS Sequoia National Forest Supervisor's Office Gary Lemke, Supervisor, Lassen County Howard Levine, Grass Valley Planning Commission Tom Lipp, California Department of Fish and Game Lone Pine Chamber of Commerce Linda Lux, Regional Historian, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Bobi Lyon, Dangermond Associates, Sacramento Patricia Manley, Wildlife Biologist, USFS Regional Office, San Francisco Kathleen Matthews, Fish Biologist, USFS PSW, Albany Bruce McGurk, Hydrologist, USFS PSW, Albany Denise McLemore, Heritage Program, Eldorado National Forest Bill Michaels, Inyo County Museum Director Robert Michener, Inyo County Planning Commission Brian Miller, Botanist, USFS Inyo National Forest Supervisor's Office Paul Miller, Plant pathologist, USFS PSW, Riverside Paul Miner, California Governor's Office of Planning and Research Ron Mittelbrun, Director, Amador County Economic Development Corporation Conrad Montgomery, Community Development Director, City of Placerville Nevada County Board of Supervisors Pat Noyes, Director, Office of Local Development, Trade and Commerce Agency Frances Park, Inyo County Planning Commission David Parsons, formerly, Research Scientist, Sequoia/Kings Canyon Nat'l Parks (National Biological Survey) Ray Patton, Director of Empire Mine and Malakoff Diggins State Park Arlene Pearce, Property Owner Paula Peper, Biological Technician, urban forestry research, USFS PSW, Albany Richard Perloff, Wildlife Biologist, USFS Inyo National Forest District Office Bob Pfister, Social Scientist, USFS PSW Riverside Gary Pigg, Planner, City of Placerville Phil Pister, Retired Biologist California Department of Fish and Game William Power, California Department of Fish and Game Robert F. Powers, Soil Scientist, USFS PSW, Redding Pete Price, Environmental Specialist, Speaker's Office, California Assembly Trent Procter, Air Quality Specialist, USFS, Sequoia National Forest Supervisor's Office Lynn Purvis, GIS Coordinator, Central Sierra Economic Development District C.J. Ralph, Wildlife Biologist, USFS PSW, Arcata Larry Rankin, Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Sierra Nevada Group Nancy Rappaport, Entomologist, USFS PSW, Berkeley Ray Ratliff, Range Scientist, USFS PSW, Fresno Marilyn Reese, Recreation, USFS Sequoia National Forest Supervisor's Office Michael Reyna, Director, State Office of Farmers Home Administration Betty Riley, Executive Director, Central Sierra Economic Development District Bob Roan, Project Coordinator, High Sierra Resource Conservation and Development Area Ken Roby, Hydrologist, Plumas National Forest, USFS PSW, Albany Rowan Rowntree, Biogeographer and Social Scientist, USFS PSW, Albany Safiya Samman, Geneticist, NFS Regional Office, Placerville Station Tamara Sawinski, Range Conservationist, USFS Inyo National Forest District Office Karen Schambach, Friends Aware of Wildlife Needs John Sheehan, Plumas Corporation, Quincy Sierra Sun newspaper Gary Snyder, Yuba Watershed Institute Alan Stahler, Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Sierra Nevada Group Stanislaus National Forest District Ranger Paul Stover, Geneticist, USFS Regional Office, Placerville Station Andy Thomas, Sierra Club Conservation Committee, Sierra Nevada Group Richard Thomas, Chair, Sierra Nevada Group, Conservation Committee, Sierra Club Leonard Turnbaugh, Alpine County Administrative Officer Jan van Wagtendonk, National Biological Survey/Yosemite National Park Research Scientist Kathy Vanzuuk, Botanist, USFS Tahoe National Forest Supervisor's Office Jerry Verner, Wildlife Biologist, USFS PSW, Fresno C. Brent Wallace, Inyo County Administrator Phil Weatherspoon, Fire Ecologist, USFS PSW Redding Jim Weir, Nevada County Board of Supervisors Bob Westfall, Geneticist, USFS PSW Albany Ann Westling, Public Information Officer, Eldorado National Forest Jim Wilcox, Plumas Corporation, Quincy Leah Wills, Plumas Corporation, Quincy Wallace Wollfenden, Archaeologist/Research Paleoecologist, USFS Inyo NF District Office A request for responses was sent through U.S. Forest Service e-mail to: Pacific Southwest Range and Experiment Station, Albany, Arcata, Redding, Fresno, Riverside, and Field Units; Region 5 (California) ecologists and botanists, Research Natural Areas committee, Los Ochos (Region 5 Ecosystem Management Implementation Group), Inyo National Forest, and individuals with a stated interest in biodiversity. APPENDIX D SIERRA SUMMIT BIBLIOGRAPHY AGRICULTURE Land in the Balance: The Williamson Act - Costs, Benefits, and Options. A California Policy Seminar Report. 1989. California Department of Conservation, Office of Land Conservation, (Parts 1 & 2, plus executive summary). Agricultural Issues Center. University of California, Davis. December. AIR QUALITY Barone, John B., et al. 1979. A Study of Ambient Aerosols in the Owens Valley Area. Final Report to the California Air Resources Board. Bradford, David F., Christina Swenson, and Malcolm S. Gordon. 1991. Aquatic Amphibians in the Sierra Nevada: Current Status and Potential Effects of Acidic Deposition on Populations. Interim report prepared for the California Air Resources Board, Los Angeles. Environmental Science/Engineering Program and Department of Biology. University of California, Los Angeles. Cahill, T. A., et al. 1990. Spatial and Temporal Trends of Fine Particles on a Continental Scale: First Results of the U.S. IMPROVE Network. In S. Masuda and K. Takahashi, editors, Aerosols. Pergamon Press, New York. Cahill, Thomas A., and Bruce H. Kusko. Study of Particulate Episodes at Mono Lake; 1982-84. Executive Summary and Final Report to the California Air Resources Board on Contract A1-144-32. Cahill, Thomas A., et al. 1986. Particulate Monitoring for Acid Deposition at Sequoia National Park, California. Final Report to the California Air Resources Board on Contract No. A4-124-32. California Air Resources Board. 1987. Effect of Ozone on Vegetation and Possible Alternative Ambient Air Quality Standards. Air Resources Board staff report, March. California Air Resources Board. 1988, 1989. Health and Welfare Effects of Acid Deposition in California. Air Resources Board, Research Division. Part 1: September 1988. Part 2: Technical Assessment, June 1989. Carroll, John J., et al. 1991. Sierra Ozone Impact Assessment Study. Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources. University of California, Davis. June. Effects of Air Pollution on Western Forests. 1989. Symposium proceedings. Air & Waste Management Association, Pittsburgh, PA. June. MacKenzie, James J., and Mohamed T. El-Ashry, editors. 1989. Air Pollution's Toll on Forests and Crops. Yale University Press, New Haven. Melack, J. M., et al. 1991. Ecological Consequences of Acidic Deposition in the Sierra Nevada. In Proceedings of the Third Biennial Watershed Conference. California Water Resources Center Report No. 75. University of California, Riverside. RCG/Hagler, Bailly, Inc., and System Application, Inc. 1988. Risk of California Forests Due to Regional Ozone Pollution. Final report to the California Air Resources Board on Contract A6-094-32. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1991. Regional Transportation Plan - Air Quality Plan for the Lake Tahoe Region. Draft, September. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Belzer, D., and C. Kroll. 1986. New Jobs for the Timber Region: Economic Diversification for Northern California. Institute for Governmental Studies. University of California, Berkeley. Berck, Peter, et al. 1989. Instability in Forestry and Forestry Communities. Unpublished paper. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics. University of California, Berkeley. September. Blakely, Edward J., and Ted K. Bradshaw. 1983. New Challenges for Rural Economic Development. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. Working Paper No. 400. January. Bradshaw, Ted K., and Edward J. Blakely. 1988. Unanticipated Consequences of Government Programs on Rural Economic Development. In David L. Brown, et al., editors, Rural Economic Development in the 1980s: Prospects for the Future. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Economic Research Service Report No. 69. ECOSYSTEMS AND BIODIVERSITY Botkin, Daniel. 1990. Discordant Harmonies; A New Ecology for the Twenty-First Century. Oxford University Press, New York. Erman, D. C. 1979. The Impact of People on Wilderness Lakes. California Agriculture. Vol. 33, p. 25. Harris, Larry. 1984. The Fragmented Forest: Island Biogeography Theory and the Preservation of Biotic Diversity. University of Chicago Press. Jensen, Deborah B., Margaret Torn, and John Harte. 1990. In Our Own Hands: A Strategy for Conserving Biological Diversity in California. California Policy Seminar Research Report. Jones and Stokes Associates. 1987. Sliding Towards Extinction: The State of California's Natural Heritage. Sacramento, CA. Moyle, P. B., and J. E. Williams. 1990. Biodiversity Loss in the Temperate Zone: Decline of the Native Fish Fauna of California. Conservation Biology. Vol. 4, No. 3, pp. 275-84. National Academy of Sciences. 1987. The Mono Basin Ecosystem: Effects of Changing Lake Level. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. Odion, D. C., T. L. Dudley, and C. M. D'Antonio. 1988. Cattle Grazing in Southeastern Sierra Meadows: Ecosystem Change and Prospects for Recovery. In C. A. Hall, and V. Doyle-Jones, editors, Plant Biology of Eastern California, Natural History of the White-Inyo Range. Symposium Volume 2. White Mountain Research Station, Department of Geology. University of California, Los Angeles. Warner, R. E., and K. E. Hendrix, editors. 1984. California Riparian Systems: Ecology, Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMICS Loomis, John B. 1989. A More Complete Accounting of Costs and Benefits from Timber Sales. Journal of Forestry. Vol. 87, No. 3, March, pp. 19-23. Loomis, John B. 1989. Quantifying the Economic Value of Public Trust Resources Using the Contingent Valuation Method: A Case Study of the Mono Lake Decision. In Transactions of the 54th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 213-23. Loomis, John, and Joseph Cooper. 1990. Economic Benefits of Instream Flow to Fisheries: A Case Study of California's Feather River. Rivers. Vol. 1, No. 1, pp. 23-30. Loomis, J., M. Creel, and J. Cooper. 1989. Economic Benefits of Deer in California: Hunting and Viewing Values. Division of Environmental Studies. University of California, Davis. Loomis, John B., Eric R. Loft, Douglas R. Updike, and John G. Kie. 1991. Cattle-Deer Interactions in the Sierra- Nevada Bio-economic Approach. Journal of Range Management. Vol. 44, No. 4, pp. 395-99. Loomis, John, Douglas Updike, and William Unkel. 1989. Consumptive and Nonconsumptive Values of a Game Animal: the Case of California Deer. In Transactions of the 54th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, pp. 640-50. Rubin, Jonathan, Gloria Helfand, and John Loomis. 1991. A Benefit-Cost Analysis of the Northern Spotted Owl: Results from a Contingent Valuation Survey. Unpublished. Schulze, W., et al. 1983. The Economic Benefits of Preserving Visibility in the National Parklands of the Southwest. Natural Resources Journal. Vol. 23, pp. 149-73. FORESTS AND RANGELANDS Bolsinger, Charles. 1988. The Hardwoods of California: Timberland, Woodland, and Savannahs. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, Oregon. Bradley, Gordon A., editor. 1984. Land Use and Forest Resources in a Changing Environment: The Urban/Forest Interface. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Burcham, L. T. 1981. California Rangeland. Center for Archeological Research, Publication No. 7. University of California, Davis. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). 1988. Forest and Rangelands Resource Assessment Program. California's Forests and Rangelands: Conflict over Changing Uses. July. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), Forest and Rangelands Resources Assessment Program. 1990. A Policy Statement to Address Growing Conflict Over Changing Uses on California's Forests and Rangelands, 1990-1995. January. Callaham, Robert Z. 1985. California's Shrublands: A Vast Area in Transition and Need. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 5. University of California, Berkeley. February. Callaham, Robert Z. 1989. Needed Research and Extension for California's Forestlands, Rangelands, and Deserts. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 20. University of California, Berkeley. September. Clary, David A. 1986. Timber and the Forest Service. University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. Dana, Samuel Trask, and Sally Fairfax. 1980. Forest Range and Policy: Its Development in the United States. McGraw-Hill, New York. Fortmann, Louise P., and L. Huntsinger. 1985. California's Oak Woodlands: Owners, Use, and Management. Unpublished report by University of California Cooperative Extension. University of California, Berkeley. Hahn, Benjamin, J. Douglas Post, and Charles B. White. 1978. National Forest Resource Management: A Handbook for Public Input and Review. Stanford Law School, Environmental Law Society. Stanford University. McCashion, John D., and Raymond M. Rice. 1983. Erosion on Logging Roads in Northwestern California: How Much is Avoidable? Journal of Forestry. Vol. 81, No. 1, January, pp. 23-26. Romm, Jeff, et al. 1987. The Economic Value of Water in National Forest Management. In Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 11. University of California, Berkeley, pp. 89-102. Teeguarden, Dennis, P. Casamajor, and J. Zivnuska. 1960. Timber Marketing and Land Ownership in the Central Sierra Nevada Region. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 774. University of California, Berkeley. Teeguarden, Dennis. 1982. A Public Corporation Model for Public Land Management Politics versus Policy: the Public Lands Dilemma. Utah State University, Logan, Utah. Vaux, H. J. 1983. State Interventions on Private Forests in California. In R. Sedgo, editor, Social Needs and the Management of U.S. Forests. Resources for the Future, Washington, D.C., pp. 124-68. NATURAL HISTORY Airola, D. Guide to the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, CA. In press. Engbeck, Joseph H., Jr. 1973. The Enduring Giants. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA. Hill, Mary. 1975. Geology of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Storer, Tracy, and Robert Usinger. 1966. Sierra Nevada Natural History. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. Verner, Jared, and Allan S. Boss, editors. 1980. California Wildlife and their Habitats: Western Sierra Nevada. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Report PSW-37. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station. Weeden, Norman. 1981. A Sierra Nevada Flora. Wilderness Press, Berkeley, CA. POLITICAL SCIENCE McCarthy, Catherine, Paul Sabatier, and John Loomis. 1991. Attitudinal Change in the Forest Service: 1960-1990. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Seattle, Washington. March 21-23. Sabatier, Paul, John Loomis, and Catherine McCarthy. 1990. Professional Norms, Hierarchical Controls, and External Constituencies. Paper prepared for delivery at the 1990 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. August 30 - September 2. PARKS & RECREATION California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1991. Statistical Report - Fiscal Year 1989/1990. Unpublished report. California Department of Parks and Recreation. 1990. Visitor's Guide to California State Parks. Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA. Engbeck, Joseph H., Jr. 1980. State Parks of California from 1864 to the Present. Graphic Arts Center Publishing Co., Portland, Oregon. Lee, Martha E., and Perry J. Brown. 1991. An Analysis, Interpretation, and Report of Recreational User Data Collected on the Inyo National Forest During Summer 1989. Draft Final Report Submitted to the U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experimental Station, Riverside, California. February. Sax, Joseph. 1980. Mountains without Handrails: Reflections on the National Parks. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor. Tilden, Freeman. 1982. The National Parks. Knopf, New York. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT California Department of Finance. California Statistical Abstracts. Department of Finance, Economic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. Published annually in October. California Department of Finance. Driver's License Address Changes. Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. Sacramento, CA. Published annually in August. California Department of Finance. Economic Report of the Governor. Department of Finance, Economic Research Unit. Sacramento, CA. Published annually in June. California Department of Finance. 1991. Household Projections for California Counties. Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. Sacramento, CA. May. California Department of Finance. Population Estimates of California Counties. Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. Sacramento, CA. Published annually in March. California Department of Finance. 1991. Population Projections for California State and Counties. Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. Sacramento, CA. April. California Department of Finance. Total Military and Civilian Population Crude Rates and Components of Change. Department of Finance, Demographic Unit. Sacramento, CA. Published annually in February. California Employment Development Department. Monthly Labor Conditions in California. Employment Development Department, Labor Market Information Division. Sacramento, CA. Published monthly. Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). 1991. California Economic Growth. CCSCE, San Francisco, CA. Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). 1991. California Population Characteristics. CCSCE, San Francisco. Center for the Continuing Study of the California Economy (CCSCE). 1991. California County Projections. CCSCE, San Francisco. Fay, James S., and Stephanie W. Fay, editors. 1990. California Almanac. Pacific Data Resources, Santa Barbara, CA. PUBLIC LANDS Clawson, Marion. 1983. The Federal Lands Revisited. Resources for the Future. Johns Hopkins Press, Washington, D.C. Fairfax, Sally K., and C. E. Yale. 1987. Federal Lands. Island Press, Washington, D.C. Wilkinson, Charles F. 1981. The Public Trust Doctrine in Public Land Law. In Harrison C. Dunning, editor, The Public Trust Doctrine in Natural Resources Law and Management. University of California, Davis, pp. 169-202. REGIONAL PLANNING Carter, Harold O., and Carole Frank Nuckton, editors. 1990. California Central Valley - Confluence of Change. Agricultural Issues Center. University of California, Davis. Kirkin, John J., and Donald R. Winkler, editors. 1990. California Policy Choices. Vol. 6. University of Southern California School of Public Administration, Los Angeles. RURAL COMMUNITIES Blakely, Edward J. 1984. New People in the Woods. In Bradley, Gordon A., editor, Land Use and Forest Resources in a Changing Environment: The Urban Forest Interface. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Bradshaw, Ted K. 1980. California As a Post-Industrial Society: Assessing Theories of Future Social Development. Paper presented to the meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. January 7. Bradshaw, Ted K. In the Shadow of Urban Growth: Bifurcation in Rural California Communities. Institute of Urban and Regional Development. University of California, Berkeley. In press. Bradshaw, Ted K. 1986. Social and Economic Development in California's Forest and Rangelands. University of California, Berkeley. Bradshaw, Ted K. and Edward J. Blakely. 1978. Policy Implications of Changing Life Styles. California Policy Seminar Monograph Number 3. Institute of Governmental Studies. University of California, Berkeley. Bradshaw, Ted, and Edward Blakely. 1981. Resources of Recent Migrants to Rural Areas for Economic Development: Policy Implications. University of California, Davis Cooperative Extension. Bradshaw, Ted, and Edward Blakely. 1979. Rural Communities in Advanced Industrial Society. Praeger, New York. Carter, Harold O., and Julie Spezia, editors. 1991. People Pressures: California's Central Valley. Agricultural Issues Center. University of California, Davis. Fortmann, Louise. 1988. Predicting Natural Resource Micro-Protest. Rural Sociology. Vol. 53, No. 3, pp. 357-67. Fortmann, Louise, and Jonathan Kusel. 1990. New Voices, Old Beliefs: Forest Environmentalism Among New and Long-Standing Rural Residents. Rural Sociology. Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 213-32. Fortmann, Louise, Jonathan Kusel, and Sally Fairfax. 1989. Community Stability: the Foresters' Figleaf. In Dennis Le Master and John Beuter, editors, Community Stability in Forest-Based Communities: Proceedings of a Conference on Forestry and Community Stability. Timber Press, Beaverton, Oregon. Gwynn, Douglas B., et al. 1990. Rural Poverty in California. California Policy Seminar Brief, Vol. 2, No. 2. University of California, Berkeley. California Policy Seminar. January. Sokolow, Alvin D., and Priscilla L. Hanford. 1986. Small Community Responses to Water Quantity Requirements in Nonmetropolitan California. California Water Resources Center Contribution No. 194. University of California, Davis. SIERRA NEVADA - GENERAL Browning, Peter. 1991. Place-Names of the Sierra Nevada. Wilderness Press, Berkeley. Farquhar, Francis P. 1969. History of the Sierra Nevada. University of California Press, Berkeley. Hill, Russell B. 1986. California Mountain Ranges. Falcon Press, Billings, Mont. King, Clarence. 1902. Mountaineering in the Sierra Nevada. Scribner & Sons, New York. Knudson, Tom. 1991. The Sierra in Peril. The Sacramento Bee (5-part series), Sacramento, CA. Lantis, David, Rodney Steiner, and Arthur Karinen. 1989. California: the Pacific Connection. Creekside Press, Chico, CA. Muir, John. 1988. The Mountains of California. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco (first published, 1894). Muir, John. 1988. The Yosemite. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco (first published, 1912). Palmer, Tim. 1988. The Sierra Nevada, a Mountain Journey. Island Press, Covelo, CA. Reid, Robert Leonard, editor. 1983. A Treasury of the Sierra Nevada. Wilderness Press, Berkeley, CA. Walters, Dan. 1986. The Sierra - the New Gold Rush. In New California: Facing the Twenty-First Century. California Journal Press, Sacramento, CA. Webster, Paul. Understanding the Sierra Nevada. Webster Publishing, Auburn, CA. WATER RESOURCES & WATERSHED MANAGEMENT California State Water Resources Control Board. 1987. Final Report of the Forest Practices Rules Assessment Team to the State Water Resources Control Board. State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA. Callaham, Robert Z. 1987. Management of Streambank Zones in Northeastern California. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 12. University of California, Berkeley. Coats, R., and L. Collins. 1981. Effects of Silviculture Activities on Site Quality: a Cautionary Review. California Department of Forestry, Sacramento, CA. Cobourn, John. 1988. Land Use in Watershed of Mixed Ownership: A Test for Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis. A policy paper for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Network for Water Policy Research and Analysis. February. Coe, Jack J., et al. 1979. Report of Interagency Task Force on Mono Lake. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California. December. Engelbert, Ernest A., with Ann Foley Scheuring. 1982. Competition for California Water: Alternative Solutions. University of California Press, Berkeley. Erman, D. C., and D. Mahoney. 1983. Recovery After Logging in Streams with and without Bufferstrips in Northern California. California Water Resources Center Contribution No. 186. University of California, Davis. Erman, D. C., J. D. Newbold, and K. B. Roby. 1977. Evaluation of Streamside Bufferstrips for Protecting Aquatic Organisms. California Water Resources Center Contribution No. 165. University of California, Davis. Gregory, S. V., et al. 1987. Influence of Forest Practices on Aquatic Production. In E. O. Salo and T. W. Cundy editors, Streamside Management - Forestry and Fishery Interventions. Institute of Forest Resources Contribution No. 57, pp. 233-55. University of Washington, Seattle. Harrison, Larry. East Branch North Fork Feather River Erosion Control Program, an Alternative to Reservoir Dredging. Pacific Gas and Electric, Hydro-Generation Department. San Francisco, CA . Herbst, David B., and Timothy J. Bradley. 1990. Predicting the Ecological Impact of Stream Diversions on Mono Lake: A Population Model for Lake Level Management. California Policy Seminar Brief. Vol. 2, No. 9. University of California, Berkeley. July. Kahrl, William L., editor. 1979. The California Water Atlas. Governor's Office of Planning and Research. Sacramento, CA. Kahrl, William L. 1982. Water and Power: the Conflict over Los Angeles' Water Supply in the Owens Valley. University of California Press, Berkeley. Pister, E. P. 1976. The Management of High Sierra Lakes. In A. Hall and R. May, editors, Symposium on the Management of High Mountain Lakes in California's National Parks. California Trout, Inc., San Francisco. Plumas National Forest. 1989. Riparian Initiative Assessment Report for the Last Chance Watershed. Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA. Proceedings of the California Watershed Management Conference, November 18-20, 1986, West Sacramento, California. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 11. University of California, Berkeley. February 1987. Reimers, N. 1979. A History of a Stunted Brook Trout Population in an Alpine Lake: A Lifespan of 24 Years. California Fish and Game. Vol. 65, No. 4. Romm, Jeff, Robert Z. Callaham, and Richard C. Kattelmann. 1988. Toward Managing Sierra Nevada Forests for Water Supply. Wildland Resources Center Report No. 17. University of California, Berkeley. Romm, Jeff, and Sally K. Fairfax. 1985. The Backwaters of Federalism: Receding Reserved Water Rights in the Management of National Forests. Policy Studies Review. Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 413-30. Taylor, T. P., and D. C. Erman. 1979. The Response of Benthic Plants to Past Levels of Human Use in High Mountain Lakes in Kings Canyon National Park. Journal of Environmental Management. Vol. 9, pp. 271-78. OTHER WORKS - GENERAL Dasmann, Raymond F. 1965. The Destruction of California. Macmillan, New York. Leopold, Aldo. 1949. A Sand County Almanac: and Sketches Here and There. Oxford University, Press, New York. APPENDIX E CASE STUDIES AND INVENTORIES The following are case studies highlighted at the Sierra Summit. FEATHER RIVER COORDINATED RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN (CRMP). A successful example of Coordinated Resource Management Planning is the East Branch Feather River CRM agreement, which was signed by 13 agencies in 1985 in order to help solve local water quality and supply problems. The program is coordinated by the Plumas Corporation, a local nonprofit economic development corporation, and receives ongoing funding from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. With the cooperation of 64 landowners and 30 agencies, this cooperative effort has resulted in the restoration of 10 miles of severely degraded stream and 3,000 acres of degraded wetlands, meadows, and rangelands. Waterfowl populations have increased by almost seven-fold, and the fish population has doubled in monitored areas. The project has also provided jobs for 50 people. EL DORADO GEOGRAPHIC ASSOCIATION. Initiated by the efforts of the Michigan California Lumber Company, the El Dorado Geographic Association is trying to coordinate current and planned mapping efforts in their area by creating a unified computerized information system and database. Participants currently include the U.S. Forest Service, El Dorado County, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, the University of California Blodgett Forest Research Station, City of Placerville, Michigan California Lumber Company, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, El Dorado Irrigation District, Georgetown Divide Public Utility District, Soil Conservation Service, and the Tahoe Resource Conservation District. The group has created a base map of the area and completed a few small cooperative projects. LAKE TAHOE SOIL EROSION PROJECTS. One example of state and local partnership is occurring at Lake Tahoe. In order to help deal with rapidly declining water quality at Lake Tahoe, the California Tahoe Conservancy is providing funds to El Dorado County, Placer County, the City of South Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe City Public Utility District, the North Tahoe Public Utility District, and the South Tahoe Public Utility District to implement 56 locally-sponsored projects to reduce soil erosion. These projects will result in revegetation of about 100 acres of land, the construction of 43 miles of roadside drainage facilities, and the restoration of 30 acres of degraded wetlands and meadows. TUOLUMNE LANDSCAPE ASSOCIATION. Prompted by the recently signed Memorandum of Understanding on Biological Diversity, representatives of the businesses and environmental communities in Tuolumne County recently joined together to hold the first meeting of the Tuolumne Landscape Association. The goals of the association are to bring together environmental and business interests, as well as locally elected officials and appropriate agencies, and to begin a dialogue and initiate cooperative planning efforts. The association is still in the process of defining its objectives, but will initially focus on two projects: (1) developing a comprehensive and coordinated geographic information system for the area, and (2) reviewing county and agency planning documents to identify inconsistencies and conflicts. NORTH FORK ECONOMIC DIVERSIFICATION EFFORT. In North Fork, a small community in Madera County that is almost entirely dependent on the wood products industry, an effort by the U.S. Forest Service and community leaders is currently underway to broaden the economic base by encouraging recreation and tourism. Steps are being taken to improve the water and sewer system, the appearance of the downtown area, traffic and visitor flow through the town, and recreation opportunities. A major step has been the recent designation of a national scenic byway that begins at North Fork. In addition, the U. S. Forest Service will soon be conducting a study to determine what so-called "value-added" or secondary industries the community could sustain. ("Value-added" industries are those that convert natural products into finished products.) INIMIM FOREST PLANNING EFFORT. The Inimim Forest, which comprises about 1,400 acres of land in northern Nevada County administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), is the setting for an experimental cooperative effort between the federal government and local residents. There are nine parcels of BLM land, each surrounded by private property. Rather than producing a management plan in the conventional manner, local residents are participating with BLM and other interests to conduct the necessary resources inventory and drafting the Inimim Forest Management Plan, with supervision and technical assistance from BLM. The result has been the development of a high-quality management plan written by the citizens who live, work, and play on the land. The plan is currently being reviewed by both the Bureau and the local community. COALITION FOR UNIFIED RECREATION IN THE EASTERN SIERRA (CURES). CURES is a recently created, voluntary organization with the mission of "preserving the Eastern Sierra natural, cultural, and economic resources and enriching the experiences of visitors and residents." Comprised of "recreation providers," government agencies, and interested citizens groups, the coalition is based on the premise that recreation is the cornerstone of the Eastern Sierra economy, and that the quality of the visitor experience, coupled with the condition of the natural environment, is the basis for recreation use and thus the economy. CURES has identified twelve major goals, including: sharing information and ideas; creating public/private partnerships; improving coordination between state, federal and local agencies; enhancing visitor services and recreation opportunities; improving natural resource protection and management; and improving the economic status of both private and public sectors. OTHER EXAMPLES Growth Management �Boulder, Colorado �Northwest Policy Center, National Growth Management Leadership Project, Portland, Oregon �One Thousand Friends of Oregon, 534 SW 3rd Ave., Portland, OR 97204 Resource Use and Resource Protection �Quincy Library Group �Trinity Watershed Council �Yuba Watershed Institute �California Coastal Commission �Santa Monica Bay (gnatcatcher) �Heritage Group, Mono Lake �Sierra Nevada east side LTC/Town/County and wetlands planning �Bodie planning, mining MOU (Mono County) �Eastern Sierra GIS Group �Tuolumne County Wildlife Plan (1986) �Sierra County Wildlife Plan. �Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee, Adirondacks Park, New York �Chesapeake Bay (water quality) �Puget Sound �Vermont Growth Management Acts �TRPA Costs of Preservation/Development �Impacts of Development on duPage County Property Taxes, County Regional Planning Commission, 421 North County Farm Road, Wheaton IL �Scenic Hudson, Poughkeepsie, NY �American Farmland Trust Economic Activity for Non-Commodity Services Such as Nature Tourism �Costa Rica �Rocky Mountain ski resorts ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR CASE STUDY RESEARCH 1) Evaluate examples of the following types of projects: �Community planning/partnership development/public participation/conflict resolution, �Interagency cooperation (local, county, regional, state, federal), �Information coordination, management, and dissemination, �Land use plans and decision-making processes (resource plans, general plans), �Economic diversification strategies, sustainability, incentives, �Management practices for natural resources, �Environmental remediation and restoration. 2) In evaluating successful case studies or restoration examples, determine what criteria were used to determine if the project was successful. How long a period was required to determine that the project was a success? Examples of attempts to restore vegetation, landscapes, or ecosystems should include those within the Sierra Nevada or within comparable ecological settings elsewhere. Restoration models could range from projects that employed passively waiting for revegetation after logging without any active management, to manipulating mine spoil, to recreating wetland conditions and vegetation. 3) For each project, see Callaham (1989) for a description of other watershed projects. Conduct interviews and review reports and newspaper articles. Identify the most important factors that lead to successes and failures, and criteria that determines success or failure. Outline the processes used. How can we go beyond the existing models to develop new methods and approaches? Are there examples of attempts to restore vegetation, landscapes, or ecosystems, either within the Sierra Nevada or within comparable ecological settings elsewhere? What lessons can we learn from cases of unsuccessful planning/management policies or practices such as clearcutting? How can we improve upon these practices? 4) Revisit successful projects to evaluate longevity of benefits, and assess overall applicability to other regions of the Sierra Nevada. What were the cost estimates and cost/benefit analyses for case studies of restoration and remediation? 5) What is the best method for disseminating the information gained? What is the appropriate role of the state in supporting and promoting innovative practices? ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES FOR INVENTORIES 1) Identify existing and successful long-term databases that currently exist in the Sierra Nevada and determine how this information can be integrated into an ecoregion-wide program. Recommend the most appropriate approach for sharing information on a region-wide monitoring database which will be useful both to technical experts and decision-makers. 2) Identify and establish priority monitoring programs. 3) Make specific recommendations on issues such as: (1) extent of the existing monitoring databases; (2) optimum locations for monitoring networks; (3) specific characteristics or constituents which require monitoring; (4) appropriate methodologies and feasibility of standardized monitoring; (5) need for quality assurance/quality control; (6) sampling frequency; (7) development of new methodologies for addressing monitoring of ecosystem function; and (8) the feasibility of using volunteers to expand our ability to provide adequate geographical coverage. 4) Collate monitoring data from existing sources for the purpose of constructing maps for the Sierra that relate water quality, vegetation conditions, wildlife status, and air quality to land use and management activities. The classifications should be sufficiently detailed to correlate land use activities with status of the resource, such as specific timber harvest or grazing policies. Preferably, the map would be correlated with: (1) past land use and management activities that could be affecting conditions today; (2) current land use and management; and (3) probable future land use as shown in city and county general plans, USFS Land and Resource Management Plans, and existing zoning regulations that includes maximum build-out and allowable lot splits. 5) Estimate sampling costs. 6) Evaluate the role of geographic information systems (GIS) and other approaches as data management tools. 7) Assessment of environmental quality, management strategies, and policy directives in the Sierra Nevada would be incomplete without an identification and evaluation of existing success stories. These successes take many forms, including: (1) scientific research and monitoring that has identified important environmental trends and the processes which drive these trends; (2) land use management programs which have either restored or improved habitat, such as riparian and stream restoration, erosion control, timber harvest management scenarios, and building practices; and (3) political processes that have resulted in interagency agreements or private-public compromises. Lessons can be learned from previous failures as well as successes. Lessons from these types of examples help us predict the level of expected success for various management options, and provide technical details of implementation that can be applied elsewhere. 8) Identify what has/has not worked in the Sierra, the state, other parts of the nation, and other countries, where appropriate. Also identify the reasons. Determine the components of these studies that would be technically and politically feasible for the Sierra. Both "process" (e.g., cooperative planning) and "physical" (e.g., stream restoration) projects could be reviewed, particularly those that solved management issues and foresaw consequences that transcended single parcels or land use types. Examples of many of these types of projects are mentioned in the text of individual research questions.