SCOPE AND BACKGROUND OVERVIEW OF SIERRA NEVADA ECOSYSTEMS AND ASSESSMENT STATUS MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES FOR ECOSYSTEM SUSTAINABILITY INSTITUTIONAL INTEGRATION OF ASSESSMENTS AND SOLUTIONS THE FUTURE CURRENT PAGE: 2 of 15 rev. Jun. 17, 1996

Critical Findings from SNEP Assessments Critical findings presented here summarize the most important specific conclusions of the SNEP assessments. Findings are included that indicate the most urgent or important facts revealed in SNEP assessments (volumes IIIII), and that relate to environmental policy and management of the Sierra Nevada. These represent new findings, findings that confirm what has been generally believed about the Sierra, and emergent or synthesizing ideas that arose from SNEPs integrated analysis of individual reports. The critical findings are presented as conclusions about specific ecosystem components, but they are closely interconnected, and cross-references to critical findings in different sections are numerousan indication of the close relationship among parts of the Sierra Nevada ecosystem. * Climate Change Climate Change During the period of recent human settlement in the Sierra Nevada, climate was much wetter, warmer, and more stable than climates of the past two millennia; successful ecosystem evaluations and planning for the future must factor climate change into analyses. Many resource assessments and consequent land-use and management decisions have been made under the assumption that the current climate is stable and indicative of recent past and future conditions. Water delivery systems (dams, diversions, anticipated stream flows) in the Sierra have been designed under the recent favorable climate, and fire-management strategies now being planned reflect forest conditions that developed under the current unusually wet climate. Periods of century-long droughts have occurred within the last 1,200 years and may recur in the near future. * People and Resources Recent Population Growth Population doubled in the Sierra Nevada between 1970 and 1990; 40% of the population growth occurred in the Sierra portion of just three counties: Nevada, Placer, and El Dorado. Much of the growth in these counties has been suburban in nature and related to Central Valley metropolitan areas. In addition to an influx of commuters, these foothill areas of high growth have a large fraction of retirees who moved to the Sierra from urban areas throughout California. Population Forecasts Official projections forecast that the 1990 Sierran population of 650,000 will triple by 2040. Some counties are forecast to quadruple to quintuple in population during this period (with the Sierra portions of counties expanding even more), primarily from the expansion of metropolitan areas in the San Joaquin valley. The foothill regions south of El Dorado County are likely to triple to quintuple in population. Impacts from Population Growth Population growth and its accompanying effects are causing significant impacts on resources. These include habitat conversion and fragmentation; invasion of non-native plants and animals; changes in stream flow and ground water due to land clearing and paving; and increases in ground water extraction, septic effluent and wastewater, fire risk, and fire and fuel-management complexity. Biotic Vulnerability The oak woodland communities of the western Sierra Nevada foothills are the most vulnerable of the widespread vegetation types as a result of greater access by humans and of their continuing potential for urban development. Less than 1% of foothill plant communities is in land formally allocated to biodiversity protection; these have been substantially altered by fire suppression. Much of the original extent of these communities has been reduced or altered due to intensive grazing, urbanization (especially low-density residential development), woodcutting, agriculture, mining, conversion to annual grassland, and land development. Severe damage to the foothill riparian zones has greatly diminished the overall viability of the foothill-woodland communities. Local Mitigation Some rapidly growing counties that SNEP examined have not collected information sufficient to adequately monitor and forecast impacts of development on biological and social resources. In addition, the current project-level approach to planning does not account for changes in regional or Sierra-wide conditions or address the need for larger-scale monitoring and improvements. Even when identified as significant impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, activities have often not been mitigated by local governments. Ecosystem sustainability and population growth require that local Sierran governments develop the capacity to assess, monitor, and mitigate resource impacts related to development and that some mechanism be developed to examine Sierra-wide impacts. Jobs The number of jobs has more than doubled in the Sierra Nevada since 1970, but the relative proportion of commodity-producing and service-producing jobs has stayed constant. Recreation, timber, and agriculture are the three largest employment sectors directly dependent on the ecosystem. In 1990, recreation accounted for 8% of all jobs, timber 4%, and agriculture 3%. Diversification has occurred within each sector. Personal Income Income earned by commuters, interest, dividends, and transfer payments to retired and other households now constitute more than half the total personal income in the Sierra Nevada. A significant implication of this change is that the regional economies are now less influenced by cyclical fluctuations in local employment from commodity, construction, and tourism sectors than in the past. Ecosystem-Based Revenues Water is the most valuable commodity, followed by timber, livestock, and other agricultural products, based on gross revenues. The Sierra Nevada ecosystem produces approximately $2.2 billion worth of commodities and services annually, based on estimates of direct resource values (not the total revenue produced by resource-dependent activities). Water accounts for more than 60% of that total value, followed by other commodities totaling 20%, and services also totaling 20%. Public timber and private recreation are the largest net contributors of funds to county governments both in total dollars and as a percentage of their total value. Around 2% of all resource values are at present reinvested into the ecosystem or local communities through taxation or revenue-sharing arrangements. Regional Patterns of Economic Activity The flow of economic values from the Sierra Nevada provides an empirical basis for assessing how different levels of government, producers and consumers, and employers and employees could be involved in new approaches to ecosystem management. These regional linkages complicate the application of many rangewide strategies but are powerfully suggestive of future opportunities involving the many stakeholders in ecosystem management. Community Dependence Communities in the Sierra Nevada are dependent on the ecosystem for a combination of direct and indirect natural resource benefits, including noneconomic benefits associated with aesthetic and sense-of-place values. Few economies are dependent exclusively on resource-extractive activities (timber, mining, grazing) . Timber-Based Employment Timber industry employment may decline from present levels due to trends of increasing labor productivity within the region and a shift in reman-ufacturing facilities out of the region. Timber harvests from federal land will have only a modest impact on trends in local employment. Ecosystem work (fuel management, environmental restorations, etc.) in the forests of the Sierra Nevada can make only a modest contribution to alleviating the effect of the decline on local workers. Timber Harvests on National Forests National forest timber harvests have averaged 650 million board feet from 1950 through 1994; the highest level was just over 1 billion board feet in 1988, and the lowest was 227 million board feet in 1994. Average timber activity differs between harvest amounts and timber sales because harvest depends on variable market conditions and may lag behind sales. In 1964, Sierran national forest timber sales were 1.2 billion board feet, whereas timber harvest was 900 million board feet. Community Well-Being One hundred eighty communities were identified in the Sierra: twenty-eight ranked low and thirty-one ranked high in a measure of well-being that includes community capacity and socioeconomic status. Community well-being is measured by socioeconomic status and community capacity; neither alone is predictive of well-being. A total of 18.5% of the Sierra population live in the twenty-eight communities with a low level of well-being. These communities have on average low socioeconomic status and, due to low community capacity, lack the local resources to take advantage of opportunities that might raise their level of well-being. Sixteen percent of the Sierra population live in the thirty-one communities with a high level of well-being. Regional Well-Being Six distinct socioeconomic regions were delineated by transportation corridors, commuting patterns, economies, community identification, and adminis-trative boundaries. There is considerable variation in socioeconomic status across and within regions in the Sierra. On average, the northern Sierra region has the lowest socioeconomic status and capacity scores of any region. The majority of the impoverished population in this region reside in foothill communities, although there are a number of small, impoverished communities scattered throughout the region. The west-central north region has the highest socioeconomic status and the second-highest average capacity score. Socioeconomic status in the greater Lake Tahoe basin region reflects an unequal distribution of wealth: 40% of the permanent basin population reside in communities with low or very low socioeconomic status, and 47% reside in communities with medium-high to very high socioeconomic status. Concentration of Low Socioeconomic Status Sierra residents living in poverty are concentrated in the larger cities and communities. Half of all Sierra residents living in poverty are found in 11% of the communities. Similarly, half of all children in households receiving public assistance reside in 8% of the communities. Most of these communities are relatively large, with populations greater than 10,000. Nonetheless, residents with low socioeconomic status are scattered throughout the Sierra, in isolated areas as well as pockets within some of the wealthy areas.