 * Critical Finding STRATEGIES * The Feather River Coordinated Resource Management (CRM) Group * Coalition for Unified Recreation in the Eastern Sierra
CURRENT PAGE: 
 
|
|
Strategies Sierran institutions do not yet invest the money and effort that are needed to sustain the health and productivity of the ecosystem against the tremendous withdrawals of the benefits it affords. It is increasingly important to attain institutions that overcome pervasive tendencies to separate the beneficiaries, owners, and stewards of ecosystems; to fragment ecosystems among often-competitive authorities and interests; and to resist adaptation to intensified pressures on ecosystem capacities. Goals The SNEP assessment suggests five goals for institutional reform to sustain and restore the ecosystems of the Sierra Nevada. Develop institutions that:
Potential Solutions Goal 1. Investing Shares of Ecosystem Benefits in Sustained Ecosystem Health and Productivity Institutionalized strategies of timber-based reinvestment such as yield taxes or K-V funds have not been extended to other values the Sierra provides in abundance. Despite the vast financial basis of the migration of settlers and recreationists to the Sierra, there are virtually no institutions through which the values thus generated can be captured and invested in sustaining the very qualities that attract people to settle, stay, and play. Possibilities for changing these situations include fair-market recreation fees, and subdivision and land transfer taxes, that flow into funds and banks designed specifically for ecosystem reinvestments. Other examples of strategies are described in chapter 8requiring that water users outside the Sierra pay taxes to support management in source areasand in chapter 4recovering funds during fuel reduction treatments. Goal 2. Developing Multijurisdictional Coordination Over five decades, the federal, state, and local governments of California have developed a remarkable system of coordination for fire protection throughout the Sierra and elsewhere in the state. Such coordination seems necessary, appropriate, and attainable for other aspects of the Sierra ecosystem. For example, riparian systems and aquatic regimes cross federal, state, and local jurisdictions throughout the Sierra, to the extent that no one jurisdiction alone can undertake the actions necessary to sustain or restore the quality of these deteriorated systems. Multijurisdictional coordination, such as cooperative riparian zones or watershed agreements and councils, is essential if maintenance and restoration of the Sierras depleted riparian and aquatic systems are to be achieved. These are described more in chapter 8. The Tahoe case demonstrates what is possible when circumstances are particularly ready and able to support the necessary cooperation. Other candidates for multijurisdictional coordination include wildlife habitat regimes and timbersheds. Species complexes are difficult to preserve, for example, if efforts to do so occur on but one side of a jurisdictional fence crossing a habitat system. Sierra timber stocking and age structures are also difficult to sustain when shifts in relative federal or state harvest restrictiveness transfer price pressures for harvest between private and public lands. Californias Biodiversity Council has made an important initial stride toward the kinds of complementary endeavors that are needed. 
 
|