Advertisement

The Humboldt Bay Initiative: Integrating People and Natural Resources in Northern California

  • Rebecca Price-HallEmail author
  • Aaron M. Hohl
  • Susan Schlosser
Chapter
Part of the Springer Series on Environmental Management book series (SSEM)

Abstract

The case presented in this chapter provides a prototype for using collaborative processes in large-scale conservation. The most important lesson of the chapter is that developing a program that addresses real-world social and environmental problems in ways that truly meet the common interest is both slow and time consuming. The Humboldt Bay Initiative (HBI) is composed of scientists, resource managers, and community members who came together to address the environmental problems of Humboldt Bay and its surrounding lands. The initial impetus for the group’s formation was frustration with the existing arena for addressing natural resource issues in the region. The arena featured polarized public discourse, fragmented jurisdictions, and decision making that was insufficiently contextual, both socially and biophysically. In its place, the group adopted an ecosystem-based management approach that is not only rooted in ecological science but also recognizes the importance of using governance mechanisms to solve environmental problems. Its successes to date have relied on strong leadership and robust collaboration among stakeholders. Its future depends on developing an institutional structure that enables it to interface with policy makers despite the fact that the current governance and constitutive structures are not designed to allow an independent group such as HBI to integrate easily into the decision-making processes.

Keywords

Large-scale conservation Prototype Humboldt Bay Initiative Collaborative learning Bridging organization Action research Evaluation research Ecosystem-based management Conservation Measures Partnership Climate change 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This document was supported in part by the National Sea Grant College Program of the U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and produced under NOAA grant number NA10OAR4170060, project number A/EA-AR-12 through the California Sea Grant College Program. The views expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the views of any of those organizations. We appreciate the many participants who have devoted countless hours of time to the task of improving the management and understanding of the Humboldt Bay ecosystem. The Humboldt Bay Initiative gratefully thanks funders for various program activities conducted between 2006 and 2012: California Coastal Conservancy, David and Lucille Packard Foundation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coastal Program, Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment. We also thank Stefan Hall, Susan Clark, and Catherine Picard for providing feedback on drafts of this chapter.

References

  1. Berg B (2004) Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson Education, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd MJ, Mulligan TJ, Shaughnessy FJ (2002) Non-indigenous marine species of Humboldt Bay, California. California Department of Fish and Game, EurekaGoogle Scholar
  3. Cejnar J (2011) Following the 80—20 rule: ranchers balance their livelihoods with needs of wildlife. Times Standard, Eureka, CA, 26 AugustGoogle Scholar
  4. Chase A (2001) In a dark wood: the fight over forests and the myths of nature. Transaction Publishers, New BrunswickGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark S (2002) The policy process: a practical guide for natural resource professionals. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  6. Conservation Measures Partnership (2007) Open standards for the practice of conservation (Version 2.0). http://www.conservationmeasures.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CMP_Open_Standards_Version_2.0.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  7. Donahue B (2014) Humboldt’s hippie growers lament environmental damage by pot “miners”. AlJazeera America, 1 January. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/1/humboldt-s-hippieslamentenvironmentaldamagebypotminers.html. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  8. Fiorino D (2001) Environmental policy as learning: a new view of an old landscape. Public Admin Rev 61:322–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (2005) Five counties road erosion inventory and assessment: final report. http://www.5counties.org/docs/dirt_final_p0210420.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  10. Five Counties Salmonid Conservation Program (2010) Five counties salmonid conservation program (5C) final report. http://www.5counties.org/docs/finalrpt_10305_cdfg.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  11. Folke C et al (2002) Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations. Ambio 31(5):437–440Google Scholar
  12. Greenson T (2011) Thompson: pot grows on public land. Times Standard, Eureka, CA, 9 DecemberGoogle Scholar
  13. Greenson T (2012) Teacher, $400 K nabbed in pot bust; pair of large-scale marijuana busts conducted this week. Times Standard, Eureka, CA, 1 MarchGoogle Scholar
  14. Gunderson LH and Holling CS (eds) (2002) Panarchy: Understanding transformations in human and natural systems. Island Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanna S (1995) Efficiencies of user participation in natural resource management. In: Hanna S, Munasinge M (eds) Property rights and the environment: social and ecological issues. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Washington, pp 59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Harkinson J (2013) How industrial pot growers ravage the land: a google earth tour. Mother Jones, 6 February. http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/02/google-earth-tour-marijuana-farms-environment-video. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  17. Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation and Conservation District (2007) Humboldt Bay management plan. http://humboldtbay.org/sites/humboldtbay.org/files/documents/hbmp2007/HumBayMgmtPLAN_print.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  18. Humboldt Bay Watershed Advisory Council and RCAA Natural Resources Service (2005) Humboldt Bay watershed salmon and steelhead conservation plan. Redwood Community Action Agency, Eureka. CAGoogle Scholar
  19. Humboldt County (2012) Humboldt County general plan update: draft environmental impact report. 2 April 2012. http://co.humboldt.ca.us/gpu/docs/drafteir/eir_full%20plan.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  20. McLeod KL et al (2005) Scientific consensus statement on marine ecosystem-based management. Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea. http://doc.nprb.org/web/BSIERP/EBM%20scientific%20statement.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  21. Mintz D (2012) Cannabis grow damage like “worst of timber industry.” Arcata Eye, 18 JanGoogle Scholar
  22. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (2009) Staff report for the 2008 integrated report for the Clean Water Act Section 305(b) surface water quality assessment and the 303(d) list of impaired waters, 18 May 2009. http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/303d/pdf/101115/Final_Adopted_RWB_Staff_Report.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  23. Olsson P, Folke C, Berkes F (2004) Adaptive comanagement for building resilience in social-ecological systems. Environ Manage 34(1):75–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Olsen SB et al (2006) A handbook on governance and socioeconomics of large marine ecosystems. Coastal Resources Center, University of Rhode Island, NarragansettGoogle Scholar
  25. Patton M (1997) Utilization-focused evaluation. 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  26. Schlosser S et al (2008) The Humboldt Bay Ecosystem Program: final report January 2007 through December 2008. http://ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/sites/ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/files/advisors/humboldt/files/HumboldtBayEcosystemReport2008.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  27. Schlosser S et al (2009) Humboldt Bay Initiative: adaptive management in a changing world. http://ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/sites/ca-sgep.ucsd.edu/files/advisors/humboldt/files/HBI%20StratPlan2009.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  28. Singleton R, Straits B (1999) Approaches to social research. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Slocomb DS (1993) Implementing ecosystem-based management: development of theory, practice, and research for planning and managing a region. BioSci 43(9):612–622CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Thompson L (1998) The mind and heart of the negotiator. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  31. UNEP/GPA (2006) Ecosystem-based management: markers for assessing progress. UNEP/GPA, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  32. Weber E (2003) Bringing society back in: grassroots ecosystem management, accountability and sustainable communities. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. West Coast EBM Network (2010) Community-based management of coastal ecosystems. http://www.westcoastebm.org/WestCoastEBMNetwork_EBMGuide_June2010.pdf. Accessed 7 Jan 2014
  34. Widick R (2009) Trouble in the forest: California’s redwood timber wars. University of Minnesota Press, MinneapolisGoogle Scholar
  35. Wondolleck JM, Yaffee S (2000) Making collaboration work: lessons from innovation in natural resource management. Island Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rebecca Price-Hall
    • 1
    Email author
  • Aaron M. Hohl
    • 2
  • Susan Schlosser
    • 3
  1. 1.City of TrinidadTrinidadUSA
  2. 2.Department of Forestry and Wildland ResourcesHumboldt State UniversityArcataUSA
  3. 3.University of California Sea Grant ProgramEurekaUSA

Personalised recommendations