Environmental Management

, Volume 51, Issue 1, pp 108–125 | Cite as

Governing Change: Land-Use Change and the Prevention of Nonpoint Source Pollution in the North Coastal Basin of California

Article

Abstract

Many rural areas in the United States and throughout much of the postindustrial world are undergoing significant ecological, socioeconomic, and political transformations. The migration of urban and suburban dwellers into rural areas has led to the subdivision of large tracts of land into smaller parcels, which can complicate efforts to govern human–environmental problems. Non-point source (NPS) pollution from private rural lands is a particularly pressing human–environmental challenge that may be aggravated by changing land tenure. In this article, I report on a study of the governance and management of sediment (a common NPS pollutant) in the North Coastal basin of California, a region undergoing a transition from traditional extractive and agricultural land uses to rural residential and other alternative land uses. I focus on the differences in the governance and management across private timber, ranch, residential, vacation, and other lands in the region. I find that (1) the stringency and strength of sediment regulations differ by land use, (2) nonregulatory programs tend to target working landscapes, and (3) rural residential landowners have less knowledge of sediment control and report using fewer sediment-control techniques than landowners using their land for timber production or ranching. I conclude with an exploration of the consequences of these differences on an evolving rural landscape.

Keywords

Amenity migration Environmental governance Environmental management Land-use change Land tenure Non-point source pollution Rural land use 

References

  1. California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (2006) Initial statement of reasons: road management plan, 2006, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (14 CCR)Google Scholar
  2. Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, 33 U.S.C. §§1251 et seqGoogle Scholar
  3. Creswell JW (2003) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  4. Dale VH, Brown S, Haeuber RA, Hobbs NT, Huntly N, Naiman RJ et al (2000) Ecological principles and guidelines for managing the use of land. Ecological Applications 10:639–670Google Scholar
  5. Dale V, Archer S, Chang M, Ojima D (2005) Ecological impacts and mitigation strategies for rural land management. Ecological Applications 15:1879–1892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dillman DA (2007) Mail and Internet surveys. Wiley, HobokenGoogle Scholar
  7. Duane TP (1999) Shaping the Sierra: nature, culture, and conflict in the changing West. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  8. Eilperin J (2006) Conservationists vie to buy forest habitat: timber firms’ sell-off worries groups. Washington Post, Washington, p A01Google Scholar
  9. Esparza AX, Carruthers JI (2000) Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain West. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20:23–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fulton WB, Shigley P (2005) Guide to California planning. Solano, Point ArenaGoogle Scholar
  11. Gill N, Klepeis P, Chisholm L (2010) Stewardship among lifestyle oriented rural landowners. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 53:317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gosnell H, Abrams J (2009) Amenity migration: diverse conceptualizations of drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal 76(4):303–322Google Scholar
  13. Gosnell H, Haggerty JH, Travis WR (2006) Ranchland ownership change in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem, 1990–2001: implications for conservation. Society and Natural Resources 19:743–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gosnell H, Haggerty JH, Byorth PA (2007) Ranch ownership change and new approaches to water resource management in southwestern Montana: Implications for fisheries. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43:990–1003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haggerty JH, Travis WR (2006) Out of administrative control: absentee owners, resident elk and the shifting nature of wildlife management in southwestern Montana. Geoforum 37:816–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen AJ, Rasker R, Maxwell B, Rotella JJ, Johnson JD, Parmenter AW et al (2002) Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the new West. BioScience 52:151–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hansen AJ, Knight RL, Marzluff JM, Powell S, Brown K, Gude PH et al (2005) Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, and research needs. Ecological Applications 15:1893–1905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harris RR, Cafferata PH (2005) Effects of forest fragmentation on water quantity and quality. California Forest Futures Conference, Sacramento, May 23–24, 2005Google Scholar
  19. Harris RR, Kocher SG (1998) Effects of county land use regulations and management on anadromous salmonids and their habitats: Humboldt, Del Norte, Mendocino, Siskiyou and Trinity Counties, California. Center for Water and Wildland Resources, University of California, Davis, CAGoogle Scholar
  20. Holmes J (2006) Impulses towards a multifunctional transition in rural Australia: gaps in the research agenda. Journal of Rural Studies 22:142–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Imperial MT, Yandle T (2005) Taking institutions seriously: using the IAD framework to analyze fisheries policy. Society and Natural Resources 18:493–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jones JA, Swanson FJ, Wemple BC, Snyder KU (2000) Effects of roads on hydrology, geomorphology, and disturbance patches in stream networks. Conservation Biology 14:76–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Klepeis P, Gill N, Chisholm L (2009) Emerging amenity landscapes: invasive weeds and land subdivision in rural Australia. Land Use Policy 26:380–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kocher SG, Gerstein JM, Harris RR (2007) Rural roads: a construction and maintenance guide for California landowners. University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, OaklandGoogle Scholar
  25. Kramer SH, Trso M, Hume N (2001) Timber harvest and sediment loads in nine northern California watersheds based on recent total maximum daily load (TMDL) studies. Watershed Management Council Networker 10(1):17–23Google Scholar
  26. Larsen SC, Foulkes M, Sorenson CJ, Thompson A (2011) Environmental learning and the social construction of an exurban landscape in Fremont County, Colorado. Geoforum 42:83–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Luce CH, Black TA (1999) Sediment production from forest roads in western Oregon. Water Resources Research 35:2561–2570CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Luce CH, Wemple BC (2001) Introduction to special issue on hydrologic and geomorphic effects of forest roads. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:111–113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maestas JD, Knight RL, Gilgert WC (2003) Biodiversity across a rural land-use gradient. Conservation Biology 17:1425–1434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. McCashion JD, Rice RM (1983) Erosion on logging roads in northwestern California: how much is avoidable? Journal of Forestry 81:23–26Google Scholar
  31. Mendham E, Curtis A (2010) Taking over the reins: trends and impacts of changes in rural property ownership. Society and Natural Resources 23:653–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Miller JR, Hobbs RJ (2002) Conservation where people live and work. Conservation Biology 16:330–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nelson AC (1992) Characterizing exurbia. Journal of Planning Literature 6:350–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Nelson PB (2002) Perceptions of restructuring in the rural West: Insights from the “cultural turn”. Society and Natural Resources 15:903–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, State of California (2006) Desired salmonid freshwater habitat conditions for sediment-related indices. NCRWQCB, Santa RosaGoogle Scholar
  36. Ostrom E (1999) Institutional rational choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. In: Sabatier PA (ed) Theories of the policy process. Westview, Boulder, pp 35–71Google Scholar
  37. Radeloff VC, Hammer RB, Stewart SI (2005) Rural and suburban sprawl in the U.S. Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation Biology 19:793–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rasker R, Hansen AJ (2000) Natural amenities and population growth in the Greater Yellowstone Region. Human Ecology Review 7:30–40Google Scholar
  39. Reid LM, Dunne T (1984) Sediment production from forest road surfaces. Water Resources Research 20:1753–1761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Robbins P (1998) Authority and environment: institutional landscapes in Rajasthan, India. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 88:410–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Robbins P, Meehan K, Gosnell H, Gilbertz S (2009) Writing the new West: a critical review. Rural Sociology 74:356–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Short AG (2010) Governing change: an institutional geography of rural land use, environmental management, and change in the North Coastal Basin of California. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  43. Shumway JM, David JA (1996) Nonmetropolitan population change in the mountain West 1970–1995. Rural Sociology 61:513–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Siegel JJ (1996) “Subdivisions versus agriculture”: from false assumptions come false alternatives. Conservation Biology 10:1473–1474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith MD, Krannich RS (2000) “Culture clash” revisited: newcomer and longer-term residents’ attitudes toward land use, development, and environmental issues in rural communities in the Rocky Mountain West. Rural Sociology 65:396–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Subdivision Map Act, Cal. Gov’t Code §66400 et seqGoogle Scholar
  47. Suttle KB, Power ME, Levine JM, McNeely C (2004) How fine sediment in riverbeds impairs growth and survival of juvenile salmonids. Ecological Applications 14:969–974CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998a) Garcia River sediment total maximum daily load. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  49. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1998b) Redwood Creek sediment total maximum daily load. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  50. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999a) Noyo River total maximum daily load for sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  51. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999b) Protocol for developing sediment TMDLs. USEPA, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  52. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999c) South Fork Eel River total maximum daily loads for sediment and temperature. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  53. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1999d) Van Duzen River and Yager Creek total maximum daily load for sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  54. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000a) Navarro River total maximum daily loads for temperature and sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  55. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2000b) Ten Mile River total maximum daily load for sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  56. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001a) Albion River total maximum daily load for sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  57. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2001b) Big River total maximum daily load for sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  58. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003a) Mattole River total maximum daily loads for sediment and temperature. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  59. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2003b) Middle Fork Eel River total maximum daily loads for temperature and sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  60. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2004) Upper Main Eel River and Tributaries (including Tomki Creek, Outlet Creek and Lake Pillsbury) total maximum daily loads for temperature and sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  61. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2005) Middle Main Eel River and Tributaries (from Dos Rios to the South Fork) total maximum daily loads for temperature and sediment. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  62. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2007) Mad River total maximum daily loads for sediment and turbidity. USEPA, San Francisco, CA, region IXGoogle Scholar
  63. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2008) Pointer no. 1: nonpoint source pollution: the nation’s largest water quality problem, vol 2009. USEPA, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  64. Walker P, Fortmann L (2003) Whose landscape? A political ecology of the “exurban” Sierra. Cultural Geographies 10:469–491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Walker P, Hurley P (2004) Collaboration derailed: the politics of “community-based” resource management in Nevada County. Society and Natural Resources 17:735–751CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Walker PA, Marvin SJ, Fortmann LP (2003) Landscape changes in Nevada County reflect social and ecological transitions. California Agriculture 57:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Weaver WE, Hagans DK (1994) Handbook for forest and ranch roads: a guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, maintaining and closing wildland roads. Pacific Watershed Associates for the Mendocino County Resource Conservation District, UkiahGoogle Scholar
  68. Weinstein M (2009) TAMS analyzer: a qualitative research tool. http://tamsys.sourceforge.net/
  69. Weiss RS (1994) Learning from strangers. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  70. Wemple BC, Jones JA (2003) Runoff production on forest roads in a steep, mountain catchment. Water Resources Research 29:1–17Google Scholar
  71. Wemple BC, Swanson FJ, Jones JA (2001) Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26:191–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yung L, Belsky JM (2007) Private property rights and community goods: negotiating landowner cooperation amid changing ownership on the Rocky Mountain Front. Society and Natural Resources 20:689–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography and EnvironmentBoston UniversityBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations