Settlement in the Sierra

* Deforestation in the Mid-1800s

Resource Use: Changing Needs Through Time

Regional Economies

* Social and Economic Analysis

COMMUNITY WELL-BEING IN THE SIERRA

Management Scenarios and Strategies

CURRENT PAGE:
10 of 16

---

Sixteen percent of all community aggregationscomprising 18.5% of the total Sierra populationhave the lowest level of well-being. These communities have medium-low to very low capacity and medium-low to very low socioeconomic status. Of these communities, 39% are located in the northern Sierra, 25% in the west-central south, and 14% in the southern Sierra, with the remaining scattered throughout the other regions. A number of these low well-being communities are formerly resource-dependent communities that, for a variety of reasons, have lost resource-based industries and jobs. The residents of these communities have, on average, low socioeconomic status and also lack the resources at a community level to take advantage of opportunities that might improve socioeconomic conditions. The low capacity in these communities is important to recognize because it suggests that these communities are unlikely to improve without substantial intervention strategies.

Seventeen percent of all aggregates, which include 15.5% of the Sierra population, have the highest level of well-being. Of these communities, 55% are in the Sacramento commuter counties of Nevada, El Dorado, and Placer. The remaining high well-being aggregates are scattered throughout the Sierra. All of the high well-being community aggregations have a high or very high socioeconomic status. Capacity scores range from medium-low to very high. Low capacity associated with high socioeconomic status is unlikely to reduce well-being as much as low capacity associated with lower levels of socioeconomic status because residents of aggregations with high socioeconomic status can, and in fact do, buy their way out of situations that other communities must work internally to overcome. In some of the high socioeconomic status communities, predominantly retiree-dominated aggregates, residents buy services such as fire protection, security, and recreation programs, whereas other communities might rely on volunteer activities, the county, or the state for provision of such services. Nonetheless, among the high socioeconomic status aggregates, high capacity reflects a higher level of well-being than aggregates with high socioeconomic status and medium to low capacity.

The Sierra Nevada offers a wealth of recreational opportunities. Every year, millions of people visit, enjoy, and impact this national treasure. (Photo by Dwight M. Collins.)

The northern Sierra region has the lowest average socioeconomic status and capacity scores of any region. Compared to the other five regions, it has the largest proportion of people in poverty and the highest level of poverty intensity, the lowest average education level, the highest level of unemployment by a considerable margin, and the highest rate of children in families receiving public assistance. Three-quarters of all aggregations in the Sierra with very low socioeconomic status are located in this region. In contrast to these low measures of well-being, the northern Sierra has a few of the highest socioeconomic status communities in the Sierra. Lake Almanor West and Graeagle are two such examples. They are small aggregations with many high-value second homes and well-to-do retirees.

The west-central north region has the highest average socioeconomic status and the second highest average capacity score. Aggregations in this region are characterized by bedroom communities with relatively homogeneous populations of out-of-county commuters and retirees. The region has a number of commuter-dominated aggregations like El Dorado Hills, one of the wealthiest in the Sierra, yet also has aggregations like Georgetown and Camino, locales once largely dependent on resource extraction that have in recent years grown considerably more diversified. The region also has pockets of extreme poverty within some of the aggregations. Grass Valley, Nevada City, and Placerville aggregations have relatively high poverty levels but also have high community capacities due to strong business communities within them.

The average socioeconomic status and capacity scores for the west-central south region are virtually the same as the average scores for the entire Sierra. It is important to point out that the west-central south region discussed here differs slightly from the west-central south region discussed in the Regional Economics section. Madera County is included in this region rather than in the San Joaquin region, as a result of expert input collected at well-being assessment workshops. The five counties of this region are linked by Highway 49, which runs north and south along the Sierra foothills and terminates in Oakhurst in Madera County. Community aggregations in this region are collectively some of the most diverse in the Sierra. There are communities, such as North Fork, historically dependent on resource extraction, and growing retiree and commuter community aggregations, including Jackson and Sutter Creek/Amador City/Volcano. There are also aggregations that have a varying mixture of retirees and economies dominated by recreation and agriculture. The southern three counties are also linked by their identification with and economic relationship to Yosemite National Park.

Community aggregations of the Greater Lake Tahoe Basin (GLTB) display a strikingly unequal distribution of wealth in this region dominated by tourism, recreation, and service economies. Slightly more than 40% of the permanent basin population resides in community aggregations with low or very low socioeconomic status, while 47% live in aggregations with medium-high to very high socioeconomic status. A vivid example is the Kings Beach aggregation, with extremely high poverty and surrounded by the much higher capacity and well-to-do aggregations of North Tahoe and Incline/Crystal Bay/Brockway. Low socioeconomic status in the GLTB is strongly influenced by low-paying seasonal jobs in the recreation, tourist, and casino industries.

The San Joaquin region discussed here differs from the San Joaquin region described previously; it excludes Madera County, which is included in the west-central south region. This region has the second lowest capacity score and a socioeconomic score that equals the average for the entire Sierra region. Despite an average socioeconomic status, there is significant poverty in the region. This region has a poverty level second only to the northern Sierra region. The Tule Indian Reservation aggregation has a low socioeconomic status, and Native Americans are almost half the population. Many of the aggregations in the southwest region were at one time economically dependent on the timber industry. Ranching and other agricultural activities remain culturally if not economically important in a number of aggregations. Local economies, however, are increasingly oriented to tourism, recreation, and retirement living. And as in many community aggregations to the north, a growing number of Fresno, Visalia, Bakersfield, and other Central Valley workers are settling in the Sierra foothills in aggregations like Lower Foothills/Millerton Lake. These new commuter residents are bringing with them both increased wealth and impacts to local communities. These changes challenge long-standing ranching and agricultural lifestyles, though conflicts are not necessarily inevitable.

The average socioeconomic status and capacity scores for the southeast region are the same as the average scores for the entire Sierra. The economies of the region are primarily based on recreation and tourism, and there is a high proportion of workers in the government and service sectors. As in the Greater Lake Tahoe Basin region, there are sharp contrasts in aggregations: the Greater Lone Pine and Antelope Valley (Walker, Coleville, Topaz) have low socioeconomic status, while Lee Vining/Mono Basin and Long Valley/Wheeler Crest/Paradise aggregations have medium-high and high socioeconomic status, respectively. This region is characterized by a land ownership pattern dominated by public agencies, primarily the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, the Forest Service, and the Bureau of Land Management. As a result, land available for development is limited and landholding decisions generally are beyond the reach of local residents. At the same time, however, current land managers are retaining much land in open space and in a natural condition that is widely valued and upon which the regions tourist economy is established.

continue next page