Stewardship contracts bundle conservation with timber harvest

By Priscilla Salant
for Headwaters News

Standing in a snow-covered parking lot in the Lolo National Forest and raising his voice above the roar of snowmobiles, the Forest Service district ranger spoke in earnest and without irony:

"Thanks to stewardship contracting, we bought 18 of the new, sweet-smelling toilets this year," he said. "Normally, I would have had to compete with other districts for money allocated to toilets. It might have taken me 10 years to get these toilets installed."

As a member of the regional evaluation team for the Forest Service’s Stewardship Contracting Demonstration Program, I appreciated the ranger’s candor. I had been struggling to understand the complexities of new policies being tested under a series of laws passed by Congress starting in 1999.

But speaking to us on that cold morning last January, the district ranger made it all crystal clear. Stewardship contracting had given him the flexibility to make management decisions in the best interests of the district for which he is responsible.

Don’t misunderstand me, though. This is about more than sweet-smelling toilets. Stewardship contracting was the brainchild of a small group of loggers, environmentalists, and civic leaders from Montana who set out to change the Forest Service back in 1995.

Instead of selling tracts of standing timber to the mills, this group wanted the agency to work with qualified contractors to achieve a wide array of objectives related to forest stewardship. Their efforts paid off in 1999 when the U.S. Congress authorized 28 so-called Section 347 pilot projects, and another 28 in subsequent legislation.

The projects are spread across eight of the nine Forest Service regions, with the greatest number in Region 1.

Supporters see stewardship contracting as a new – and much better – way of doing business for two reasons. First, they point to a radically changed administration process:

-- Stewardship contracts can include a variety of land-management tasks in one "bundled" contract. Not all contracts will look the same, but generally speaking, the contractor whose bid is accepted agrees to harvest forest products and provide restoration services.

-- The value of products harvested from any given site is used to offset the costs of stewardship services. For example, at the Lolo National Forest site mentioned above, receipts from the timber sale are being used to cover the cost of decommissioning roads, restoring streams, and treating weeds. This is referred to as "goods for services." Under traditional contracts, timber sale receipts are returned to the federal treasury.

-- Contracts may be awarded on the basis of "best value" to the government rather than to the highest bidder (for timber sales) or lowest bidder (for service contracts). This allows the Forest Service to consider contractors’ past performance, experience, and ability to complete work in a timely manner, in addition to the dollar value of the bid. Furthermore, preference may be given to local contractors.

-- Stewardship contracts designate which timber is to be harvested by prescription – the desired end result – rather than relying on Forest Service employees to mark trees to be sold and to supervise the harvest.

Second, supporters of stewardship contracting point to a new way of involving the public in decision-making. Local people representing diverse interests are to be involved in developing projects, as well as in monitoring and evaluating the projects as they are carried out.

At several sites, local groups are directly involved in doing the on-the-ground work.

"The emphasis is on what’s best for the land, first and foremost."

-- Tom Kovilecky, former supervisor
of the Nez Perce National Forest.

Equally important is how stewardship contracting is not a new way of doing business: Pilot projects are not exempt from NEPA requirements. Based on what we have seen so far in Region 1, stewardship projects are no less likely to be appealed and litigated – despite the intense collaborative planning processes – than non-stewardship projects.

Anyone familiar with the current state of public lands management will not be surprised to hear that stewardship contracting has generated a fair amount of controversy. The greatest concern is that "goods for services"gives district rangers an enormous incentive to harvest more timber and thus pay for more services.

Critics also argue that the public participation process is still mere window dressing. They say the frequency of litigation on stewardship projects is high because when it comes to environmental concerns, these projects are no different from business as usual for the Forest Service.

In contrast, supporters say stewardship contracting is a way to put forest health first. According to Tom Kovilecky, former Nez Perce National Forest supervisor, "The stewardship idea shifts the emphasis back to true forestry and the land management. The emphasis is on what’s best for the land, first and foremost."

As a relative newcomer to the ways and wiles of public land managers, I welcome the invitation to use my rural development experience on the regional evaluation team.

Eight months into the process, we clearly don’t know enough to say whether stewardship contracting will live up to the expectations of those committed folks from Montana. However, it does offer potential benefits along four dimensions:

-- Local economic opportunities. Where skills and mills haven’t disappeared altogether, local people have a good chance to get the work.

-- Ecological health. Bundling multiple stewardship activities into one contract and re-investing receipts into restoration may allow district rangers to put forest health – not the size of the cut – first, as Kovilecky maintains.

-- Public participation. With good recruitment and publicity, true openness, and willingness to stay through the long NEPA process, communities of interest and place may have a greater voice in ecosystem management.

-- Administrative efficiency. Depending on the relative savings in contract preparation and implementation, the agency may realize savings. Clearly, the upfront costs (other than NEPA), promise to be lower.

No one is minimizing these contingencies, but that’s the nature of demonstration projects. Wisely, I believe, Congress has authorized a large number of sites. Even within our region, they span a range of project sizes, ecosystem types, activities and administrative approaches.

Together, they represent what Daniel Kemmis has described here on Headwaters News as alternative management frameworks tested in contained, carefully selected and monitored settings.

Time – and openness – will answer the critical question: Can stewardship contracting meet national environmental standards while giving the district ranger flexibility to buy as many sweet-smelling toilets as he needs?

Have an opinion? Post it now.
Click here to comment. Click here to see what others are saying.
Or click here to view other forums.

back to Perspective: | back to page one