Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
It all boils back to partnering, collaboration, and coming to the table and being
able to walk away and say, “I didn't get what I wanted but it's better than noth-
ing.” That has to come from private [industry], Forest Service, environmental-
ists . . . foresters. Do we [in the industry] believe in the 16 inch size cap? I know
we don't. But should we go fight that battle when we're getting something
done? No.
Monitoring
A unique aspect of the stewardship contracting authorities calls for multiparty moni-
toring of stewardship contracting outcomes. In the White Mountains, this was ac-
complished by convening a monitoring board consisting of a cross-section of local in-
terests, many of whom were involved in other local forums, such as the NRWG (Sitko
and Hurteau 2010). The board was tasked with making recommendations to the for-
est supervisor regarding how to monitor the ecological, economic, and social effects of
the WMSC. A small, but significant, portion of the stewardship contract budget was
dedicated to monitoring. The monitoring aspect was considered particularly impor-
tant by conservation and environmental advocates involved in the stewardship con-
tract, some of whom said they would have been less comfortable supporting the con-
tract had it lacked a strong community-based monitoring component.
Other Policy Mechanisms
It is important to note that stewardship contracting authorities are not the only recent
policy changes that have helped to encourage restoration of public lands in the White
Mountains. The Economic Assistance Program (a U.S. Forest Service-administered
rural development program that has remained unfunded in recent years), a series of
federal biomass utilization grants, and other state and federal grant programs played
major roles in supporting some of the initial business development in the White
Mountains that helped create wood utilization options for small-diameter material.
The Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA), which became law in 2003, and the ad-
ministrative Healthy Forests Initiative (HFI) both provide streamlined bureaucratic
processes for implementing projects that are collaboratively designed and/or meet
fuel-reduction goals. Perhaps just as important, both HFRA and HFI provide explicit
direction to land managers to engage in forest restoration activities, something that
has largely been lacking in previous public land policy. Despite national controversy
regarding HFRA and HFI (Vaughn and Cortner 2005), these policies have been used
extensively and largely without conflict in the implementation of the WMSC.
Implementation
As of this writing, the WMSC has been under way for five and a half years, just more
than half of its ultimate duration. In this time, approximately thirty-eight thousand
acres of forest, mostly in the wildland-urban interface, have been treated to restore
resiliency and to move these forests closer to historical conditions (fig. 12.2). While
