Loss of Agricultural Lands

In order to maintain agriculture in the Sierra and the benefits it provides lands zoned for agriculture need to remain in agriculture. Several agencies track loss of agricultural lands in California and Nevada: California Division of Land Protection’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) and the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service Census of Agriculture. However, comprehensive studies of agricultural lands being rezoned for other uses have not been conducted for the SOSA region.

Census of Agriculture

Every five years the U.S. Department of Agriculture conducts the Census of Agriculture. The census will be conducted in 2007. The census includes a vast amount of data about crops, livestock, farms and operators. For the purpose of tracking agricultural lands, statistics tracking acreage of farmland, acreage of orchards and number of cattle are the most useful.

Of the three, acreage of orchards offers the clearest trend. From 1992-2002 more land was cultivated for orchards in California and Nevada counties within SOSA. Only Placer County with 1,886 acres showed significant decrease of orchard acres. This was nearly half the acreage reported in 1992. On the other hand, Yuba County added nearly 5,000 acres of orchards.

Farmland acres are a bit more varied. Mono County reported losing nearly half its farmland, 48,928 acres, between 1992-2002. Modoc County, 77,948 acres, and Butte County, 70,815 acres also reported extensive loss of farmland acreage. However, Plumas County added more than 51,000 acres and Calaveras and El Dorado County each added approximately 15,000 acres. The Central Valley counties show a similar variation. Fresno County gained 154,201 farmland acres Yet Kern and Tehama counties show farmland acreage losses greater than 100,000 acres.

Trends for the number of cattle are equally muddy. Core Sierra counties such as Amador, Modoc, Nevada, Placer and Sierra show decreases of cattle. However, several Central Valley counties had huge increases in cattle. Tulare added more than 300,000 cattle from 1992-2002, and Fresno County added nearly 100,000. The prevalence of confined animal feeding (CAF) operations in the Central Valley needs to be considered when judging the increase of cattle. Increased cattle numbers do necessarily mean increased ranchlands and vice versa.

Download Agricultural Comparison Data

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

The FMMP tracks the rezoning of agricultural lands to urban and built-up lands in several regions of the state. The FMMP classifies agriculture lands into three categories: Prime, Statewide/Unique and Grazing/Local. While only several geographic delineations used by the FMMP fit entirely within the SOSA region, it’s worth examining the trends among the SOSA counties FMMP studies.

Several counties do fit within the SOSA and FMMP studies: Amador, El Dorado, Modoc, Nevada, and Placer. FMMP also tracks agriculture rezoning in the Sierra Valley within Sierra, Plumas and Lassen Counties, which also fits within the SOSA region. Of those counties, Placer and El Dorado experienced the greatest loss of agricultural land to urban from 1992-2002. Placer lost 11,489 acres, primarily grazing and local lands. El Dorado County lost 2,522 acres, which was primarily grazing and local lands as well.

Download Grazing Land Loss Data

The loss of agricultural lands, which can safely be extrapolated from the FMMP study for SOSA purposes, primarily occurred near the Sacramento metro area region. Many of the Central Valley counties included in the SOSA region experiencing significant agricultural land loss – Fresno, Kern, and Tulare – have extensive agriculture lands on the valley floor. Thus making the statistics unreliable for accurate comparison to the portions of those counties within the SOSA region.

The two agricultural land tracking mechanisms exhibit some obvious deviations. For example, while the FMMP shows El Dorado losing more than 2,500 acres, the Census of Agriculture shows an increase of 15,036 acres of land in farms as well as 972 acres in orchards for El Dorado County during the same time period. Amador County shows even a greater difference between the two. FMMP indicates the county lost 577 agricultural acres between 1992-2002, while the Census of Agriculture shows a decrease of 42,078 acres of farmland.

The American Farmland Trust has extensively studied loss of agricultural lands and the future of agriculture in the Central Valley. Development in the Central Valley is occurring on the regions best farmlands. The prime farmlands make up roughly 40 percent the region’s land, however, more than half of the land developed in the 1990s occurred on prime farmlands. Agriculturalist, land planners and government officials in the Sierra would greatly benefit from a similar focus its agricultural lands.

We acknowledge both tracking mechanisms have flaws. The Census of Agriculture figures are self-reported. The FMMP only tracks agriculture lands shifting to urban and built-up lands. However, agriculture lands taken out of production, but not yet shifted to urban and built-up lands, do not appear as lost agriculture land yet.

The FMMP shows continual agricultural land loss of the counties just to the west of the Sacramento metro area: Yuba, Nevada, Placer, El Dorado and Amador. The Census data differs showing gains in Nevada and El Dorado counties. The significant discrepancies between the FMMP and the Census of Agriculture data, and there are many, indicate that there is a gap of knowledge regarding agricultural lands and the changing uses of agricultural land. Execution of an agricultural land loss-specific study for the Sierra would fill this need.

Oak Woodlands

Oak woodlands comprise nearly one-quarter of the California’s Sierra Nevada acreage, concentrated in the private lands of the western foothills between 450-4,500 feet. Between 1945 and 1985 roughly 800,000 acres of the 4.7 million total were lost due to changes in land use or vegetation types. This figure represents an annual decline of almost 16%. Some counties, such as Tuolumne County, experienced a 42% decline. Other counties with high loss rates during that time period include Calaveras (29%), Amador (28%) and Tehama (23%). Only two counties within the 15 studied showed an increase: Shasta (7%) and El Dorado (2%).

Some of the ecological reasons for such losses include:

* Higher soil moisture affecting the root systems of oaks as a result of changes in the types and amount of vegetation surrounding the trees;

* Fewer fires due to fire suppression policies;

* Higher intensity fires when fires do happen;

* Increased consumption of oak seedlings and acorns by grazing animals; and

* Increased compaction of soils around oak trees, making root growth for seedlings more difficult.

In 1986, California State Board of Forestry and the State Legislature created the Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program (IHRMP) with an aim of improving the sustainability of California’s hardwood rangelands. Deciding that research and education was the best approach, IHRMP brought together several state institutions including the University of California, the California Department of Forestry and the California Department of Fish and Game with the mission of maintaining, and where possible, increasing acreage of California’s hardwood range resources to provide wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, wood and livestock products, high quality water supply, and aesthetic value.

IHRMP’s current project list includes three categories: landscape level changes in oak woodlands, conservation policy issues, and sustainable management practices.

The biggest factor in loss of oak woodlands, is not ecological change but development. California’s Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP), a program of the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF), reports that future development in the region will definitely impact private forest, range, and agricultural lands. This is especially true in the Sierra, as more people leave the urban areas seeking a rural lifestyle in the Sierra foothill communities.

Unfortunately, these foothill communities coexist with much of the oak woodland and important riparian habitats. The majority of that habitat is located on privately owned working landscapes. Interestingly, state and federal governments have tried to protect these privately owned forests and rangelands through zoning and tax relief policies, but such tools have not been successful in oak woodland areas. And, while many counties have ordinances or policies regarding oak woodland protection, they are often focused on protecting individual trees rather than overall habitat values.