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?
Priscilla Salant is an adjunct
faculty member at the University of Idaho's Department of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Sociology, where she analyzes social and rural
economic trends, conducts rural development program evaluations,
and develops research tools for community leaders.
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.
click
here for a printer-friendly version
