Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Such packages generally rely more on heavy equipment and less on labor-intensive
restoration methods and techniques.
While we are not in a position to evaluate the relative ecological effectiveness of
large and small restoration projects (an important research question in its own right),
we can make some observations about the community effects of the shift toward
larger, more technologically complex restoration efforts. Restoration practitioners, for
example, commented on the negative effects on small restoration businesses and or-
ganizations. Indeed, some practitioners argued that small restoration projects could
produce more efficient restoration outcomes than larger projects. One interviewee
noted that currently there “is a shift frommany small, very efficient grants, such as the
CDFG Fisheries Restoration Grants Program, towards large, very inefficient [grants]
to a few groups/agencies that can absorb the high overhead of such projects” (phone
survey 2008). In contrast to the administrative efficiency of packaging funding into
fewer large bundles, this perspective highlights a different form of efficiency, one that
emphasizes the selective ability of smaller restoration organizations to minimize ad-
ministrative overhead and direct a greater proportion of a restoration grant to achiev-
ing restoration objectives “on the ground.” This perspective surfaced often when in-
terviewees described the DFG Fisheries Restoration Grants Program's historic
support for a diverse array of small and large restoration projects, in contrast to the
“mega” restoration projects funded by the SWRCB, which were sometimes charac-
terized as inefficient or even cumbersome.
Not all restoration nonprofits and businesses in Humboldt County have been able
to successfully adapt to these changing funding priorities and requirements. Shifting
priorities and funding criteria exert a not-so-subtle influence on the meaning of resto-
ration itself. Several small watershed-based groups have struggled unsuccessfully to
maintain steady levels of funding support. One local heavy equipment operator, who
has been involved in restoration in Humboldt County since 1979, rightly noted that
the decline in contracts for restoration work for smaller operators is due to distribu-
tional issues rather than declines in overall funding levels. As support for smaller,
community-based restoration organizations dwindles, the restoration system in Hum-
boldt County may begin to resemble a more traditional business sector. If this hap-
pens, the ideology of stewardship that connects communities to their places through
environmentally engaged action will exert a diminishing influence on the restoration
sector. One practitioner explained it as follows:
It seems that restoration funding was more widely available to smaller outfits at
the beginning of the “restoration bubble.” Now most of the funding is allocated
through larger nonprofits or more corporate entities that can do larger, multi-
site projects and deal with the huge overhead involved. Not necessarily a terri-
ble transition, but somewhat lamentable that small watershed organizations are
looked upon less favorably today. (phone survey 2008)
These shifts in funding patterns away from smaller watershed organizations toward
larger nonprofits and corporate entities are consistent with Higgs's predictions that as
Search WWH ::




Custom Search