Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
restoration system described in the prior section. Private foundations and the Hum-
boldt County Department of Public Works also support restoration activities. The
great majority of funding for restoration comes in the form of grants to local nonprofit
organizations, businesses, landowners, tribes, municipalities, and, in some cases, to
public land management agencies. To develop a credible estimate of the money that
comes into Humboldt County for restoration, we contacted the primary state and fed-
eral agencies and foundations that provide support for salmonid, watershed, and eco-
system restoration projects. We focused on projects whose primary purposes are to
restore or enhance ecological conditions. From each entity we obtained detailed in-
formation about the kinds and amounts of restoration support they provided between
1995 and 2007 (table 16.1). This information was analyzed carefully to ensure a com-
prehensive, credible, and accurate estimate of county-level investment patterns.
The information we gathered shows that between 1995 and 2007, the restoration
sector brought almost $135 million into Humboldt County for within-county restora-
tion work. From 2000 to 2007, restoration-related work brought more than $107 mil-
lion into the economy, averaging more than $13 million per year. From any perspec-
tive, this represents a significant contribution to the county's economy. Moreover,
both table 16.1 and figure 16.2 provide what we feel to be conservative estimates of
restoration funding in Humboldt County, as they do not reflect all contributions to
restoration-related activities. Excluded contributions either fit our definition of resto-
ration but are too diffuse to capture, or they are outside the realm of our definition but
surely contribute to restoration efforts in the county.
3
As our data portray, ecological restoration represents a burgeoning sector of the
Humboldt County economy. In 2006 restoration brought well over $18 million into
the county, and in 2007 restoration funding totaled just under $18 million. Such
amounts are unprecedented. In fact, funding amounts in 2006 and 2007 were more
than $7 and $6 million higher, respectively, than the average of the five previous
years. Thus, it came as a surprise when, during our research, restoration practitioners
repeatedly referred to a severe decline in restoration funding during the last several
years. The perception that public funding for restoration was drying up, which the
overall increase in funding levels contradicts, led us to analyze the funding patterns of
the primary public agencies that fund restoration. Could agency-specific variations in
funding patterns account for this apparent contradiction?
Two entities that have significantly influenced restoration funding in Humboldt
County are the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and the State Water
Resource Control Board (SWRCB). The DFG has long been a pillar of ecological
restoration funding in the state and in Humboldt County. Much of its funding is ad-
ministered through the Fisheries Restoration Grants Program, which supports a wide
range of restoration activities, from habitat enhancement to watershed education. By
contrast, the SWRCB has become a primary source of restoration funding only in re-
cent years as the 2002 passage of Propositions 40 and 50 dramatically increased fund-
ing contributions for restoration from the SWRCB. Both propositions provide bond
funding for projects that improve and/or protect water resources in California. Such
funds, in addition to baseline statewide funding provided by the Clean Water Act
