Saving the Forest from the Trees: Expert Views on Funding Restoration of Northern Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests through Registered Carbon Offsets
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an exceptional engaging paper dealing with a complex science and complex set of issues and opportunities. They nicely digest the opportunity (carbon credits to accrue through restoration) and their methods (SFR) submitted to (ACR) and the results of the several-year review process and ultimate rejection of their methodology. Their experience has analogs of others' experience in meeting environmental certification programs and broadens the experience base and lessons learned well beyond forest carbon credits. They have nicely identified and discussed the conundrum created through misalignment of priorities of carbon registries and context-specific ecological benefits of restoration approaches. Their conclusions regarding using the principle of reflexivity in considering proposed project approaches and handling the inevitable uncertainties which don't model so easily provide practical types of thinking that is needed going forward in designing programs and projects proposed for those programs.
Very nice paper!
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is devoted to an extremely topical and important issue - forest restoration. Human intervention in the processes of reforestation can have a reasonable basis, and then it is useful to him and the forest, such as thinning, regeneration of valuable tree species, melioration, the correct system and volume of primary use cuttings. The article focuses on the utility of thinning and prescribed burning for forest restoration.
However, all of these restoration measures are difficult to achieve due to high costs and other institutional barriers. In this regard, the authors use the example of Southwestern U.S. forest restoration methodology to uncover the decision-making system, and analyze various authoritative views on the processes that allow forest restoration to be organized. The article provides a qualitative assessment of public comments and internal peer reviews on the SFR methodology.
It is a bit disconcerting that a single figure is provided in the text of the article, but there is additional data in the appendix. This style is somewhat different from traditional articles of a similar journal on the topic of forest research, but probably acceptable in the context of the research topic discussed.
In general, the article is very well designed, with a clear structure and style of presentation. As a major comment, I would note the lack of a clear position of the authors on the concepts considered, as well as the methodology. In the context of U.S. forests and the global problem of reforestation. How do the authors think this will play out in the world context and will this methodology resonate in other countries? If yes, I would like more specifics and the authors' position.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
