Few pieces of legislation can say they are building on civil rights progress in the South and advancing the dialogue between environmentalists and the timber industry. The Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act can, according to a study released today by the Sierra Institute for Community and Environment.
In fact, this first-ever legislation to mandate collaboration in natural resource management is resulting in the development of a new consensus in forest management, surpassing even what some of the most optimistic supporters of the bill thought possible when it passed in 2000. A two-year, nine-state study by the Sierra Institute says it offers real hope for a "radical middle" in the contentious debate over how best to manage federal forestland. Because the six-year legislation expires this year, Congress is in the midst of a debate on reauthorizing and funding it. The Bush Administration has recently made a controversial proposal to sell off some of the federal lands in order to help fund the Act.
In addition to providing support for rural schools and counties, a cornerstone of the Act was establishing Resource Advisory Committees or RACs—groups composed of industry, environmentalists, recreation group representatives, and government officials. These groups have been meeting to make recommendations to the federal government on projects to improve federal forestland.
In states across the West, where most of our nation’s federal forestlands are located, RACs have been established to talk about how to spend money dedicated to improving these lands. As a mark of their success, thousands of projects have been approved and launched. The types of projects involved restoring watersheds and fisheries, removing noxious weeds, and fuels thinning. While some projects included more controversial activities, such as the thinning of trees, not a single project has been appealed.
The Sierra Institute found that members of the RACs, while not abandoning their values or missions of their organizations, came out of their foxholes and began an earnest dialogue with each other and the land management agencies. In the process, participants listened more than ever to those they had been battling for years. Jointly, they recommended projects to improve federal forestland. One environmentalist said that if someone had told him he would approve projects he’s now supported as a RAC member, he would have told them that they were "crazy."
In Mississippi, some counties in the southwestern portion of the state are able to contribute funds to allow the RAC there to operate because they’ve "gotten past" some of the racial problems that are still holding back nearby counties. The Forest Service working with county residents has established what is perhaps the most diverse RAC in the country.
Study authors make clear that this is a work in progress, but the successes are real—and something to be built upon. Sierra Institute director, Jonathan Kusel said, "What we’re seeing taking hold is a genuine and powerful dialogue that’s translating into projects on the ground benefiting the land and the people."
"The process is defining new ways groups can work together, a new middle ground," he added. Unlike simple compromise, the radical part of this process is that groups are learning from each other and with each other—with measurable improvement of federal forestland is the result.
To read a press statement issued jointly by Senators Wyden and Craig on February 28, 2006, click on the link below:
To learn more about study findings click on the links below to download in PDF fomat:
Summary and Findings:
Executive Summary
Conclusions and Recommendations
Complete Study (by Chapter):
Cover
Title Page
Acknowledgements
Executive Summary
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Introduction
Chapter 2. Legislating Collaboration: Institutions and Players that Gave Birth to the Act
Chapter 3. A View From the Ground: Case Studies in Implementation
Olympic Peninsula, Washington
Idaho Panhandle
Southwest Mississippi
Siskiyou, California
Roseburg, Oregon
Chapter 4. Counties' Choices: Opting In or Not and Determining Allocations for Title II and III
Chapter 5. Utilization of Title III Funds: Case Specific Findings
Chapter 6. The Life and Accomplishments of Resource Advisory Committees: Findings From Cases
Chapter 7. Conclusion with Recommendations
References
Appendix I
Appendix II
The 16 Case Studies: (Click on the Underlined Cases)
Alaska
Wrangell and Petersburg
Arizona
Eastern
California:
Del Norte
Siskiyou
Tuolumne
Idaho
Southwest
Panhandle
Oregon
Fremont-Winema
Coos Bay
Medford
Roseburg, Oregon
Pennsylvania
Allegheny National Forest
Washington
Colville
Olympic Peninsula, Washington
