Socioeconomic Assessment of Proposed Habitat Restoration within the
Riparian Corridor of the Sacramento River Conservation Area - Final Report
Prepared for The Nature Conservancy Sacramento River Project, by Jones and Stokes with technical support from TWC Economics and Ayres & Associates, March 2003. Funded by CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program and Administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. List of Preparers
We recommend Acrobat Reader 5, some documents do not display properly in earlier versions.

Download the report in compressed format

WinZipped (4 M)                 Gzipped Tar Archive (Linux & Mac) (4 M)

Table of Contents (102k)

Section 1. Summary (46k)

Section 2. Assessment Objectives (19k)
    Background
    Objectives

Section 3. Overview of Assessment Scope and Methods (31k)
    Background
    Methods

Section 4. The Base Case – Current Conditions in the Sacramento River Study Area (385k)
    Background
    The Study Area
    Land Uses
    Land Ownership
    Programs Affecting Agricultural Land Conversion in the StudyArea
    Central Valley Project Improvement Act
    CALFED Bay-Delta Program
    Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins ComprehensiveStudy
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sacramento River National Wildlife Refuge
    The Nature Conservancy Sacramento River Project
    California Department of Fish and Game
    California Department of Parks and Recreation

Section 5. Post-Restoration Conditions and Assumptions (28k)
    Background
    Study Area Boundaries
    Land Conversion and Ownership Assumptions
    Land Conversion Time Frame Assumptions
    Assumptions Regarding Infrastructure Maintenance and Flood
    Protection Activities
    Summary of Assumptions

Section 6. Socioeconomic Implications (231k)
    Analytical Framework
    Effects on the Local Economy and Fiscal Conditions
    Agricultural Resources Effects
    Recreation Effects
    Site Monitoring Effects
    Regional Economic Effects
    Fiscal Effects
    Changes in Social Costs and Benefits
    Potential Loss of Agricultural Benefits (Producer’s Surplus)
    Flood Control Benefits and Costs
    Recreation Benefits
    Ecosystem Protection Benefits
    Interim Effects
    Background
    Agricultural Effects
    Recreation Effects
    Restoration and Site Monitoring Effects
    Regional Economic Effects
    Fiscal Effects
    Social Costs and Benefits

Section 7. Conclusions (20k)

Section 8. Citations (27k)
    Printed References
    Personal Communications

Appendices

Appendix A. Agriculture (18k)

Appendix B. IMPLAN Model Description (14k)

Appendix C. Fiscal Analysis Data Sources and Methodology (670k)

Appendix D. Recreation (35k)

Appendix E Record of Stakeholder Involvement (19k)

Letters and Comments
JSA Response to letters of comment (40k)
California Farm Bureau Federation (1.8 M)
County of Butte Chief Administrative Office (2.75 M)
County of Glenn Department of Agriculture (640k)
Family Water Alliance (1.77 M)
Glenn County Resource Conservation District (564k)
Shirley Lewis, Butte County Landowner Representative to the Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (380k)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento national Wildlife Refuge Complex (269k)
Wildlife Conservation Board (674k)
County of Colusa (715k)
Riparian Habitat Joint Venture (1.17 M)

Tables
4-1 Current Land Uses within the Study Area (9k) Follows page 4-2
4-2 Current Land Ownership Within the Study Area (9k) Follows page 4-2
5-1 Land Conversion by 2030 (8k) Follows page 5-2
6-1 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values in Butte County (12k) Follows page 6-4
6-2 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values in Colusa County (10k) Follows page 6-4
6-3 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values in Glenn County (12k) Follows page 6-4
6-4 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values in Tehama County (13k) Follows page 6-6
6-5 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values Displaced in Butte County (12k) Follows page 6-6
6-6 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values Displaced in Colusa County (10k) Follows page 6-6
6-7 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values Displaced in Glenn County (10k) Follows page 6-6
6-8 Crop Types, Acreages, and Values Displaced in Tehama County (12k) Follows page 6-6
6-9 Estimated Visitor Days in 2000 for Activities Potentially Affected by
Proposed Habitat Restoration (10k) Follows page 6-8
6-10 Recreation-Related Spending Associated with Use at Potentially Affected
Recreation Areasa, by County (9k) Follows page 6-8
6-11 Site Monitoring Expenditures Section 6, page 6-10
6-12 Existing Economic Conditions in the Four County Area Section 6, page 6-11
6-13 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Job Losses Resulting from Reduced
Agricultural Expenditures Section 6, page 6-12
6-14 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Reduction in Personal Income Resulting from
Reduced Agricultural Expenditures Section 6, page 6-12
6-15 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Job Gains Resulting from Increased
Recreational Expenditures Section 6, page 6-13
6-16 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Increase in Personal Income Resulting from
Increased Recreational Expenditures Section 6, 6-14
6-17 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Jobs Resulting from Site Monitoring Section 6, page 6-14
6-18 Direct Plus Indirect/Induced Personal Income from Site Monitoring Section 6, page 6-15
6-19 Average Distribution of Affected Revenues Among County Funds, Schools
Funds, and Special Districts Section 6, page 6-17
6-20 Percent of Authorized Federal Revenue Sharing Rate Paid to Local
Jurisdictions, 1991-2000 Section 6, page 6-23
6-21 Summary of Revenue Impacts on Study Area Counties (17k) Follows page 6-24
6-22 Summary of Revenue Impacts on Special Districts within the Study Area Section 6, page 6-29
6-23 Estimated Change in Agricultural Benefits (12k) Follows page 6-32
6-24 Potential Flood-Related Benefits of Riparian Habitat Restoration (9k) Follows page 6-34
6-25 Annual and Cumulative Spending for Site Restoration, Maintenance and
Monitoring (8k) Follows page 6-42

Figures
4-1 Project Location (106k) Follows page 4-2
4-2 Study Area Vicinity Map (64k) Follows page 4-2
4-3 Study Area Land Use (187k) Follows page 4-2
6-1 Analysis of Regional Economic Activity (16k) Follows page 6-2