Documentation:Open Case Studies/FRST522/2023/Mt. Adams Community Forest, Washington State, United States: An assessment of their conservation and stewardship practices
Summary of Case Study
The Mt. Adams Community Forest (MACF) in Washington State, U.S., represents a prominent example of forestry stewardship and conservation. Effectively overseen by the Mt. Adams Resource Stewards (MARS), a non-profit organization, this pioneering model prioritizes sustainable forest management, ecological health, and local economic development[1]. A comprehensive evaluation of conservation and management practices in the MACF is presented in this study, which primarily focused on the incorporation of ecological sustainability, economic viability, and community engagement. An examination is conducted of the adaptive management strategies, historical context, and environmental challenges that were encountered during the creation of this vital ecosystem under a community-based ownership model.The substantial consequences of climate change on forest ecosystems are underscored in this research, which also offers an examination of the diverse conservation approaches presently being implemented, such as habitat restoration, sustainable timber harvesting, controlled burning, and invasive species management.
Furthermore, this study investigates the socioeconomic impacts of forest management on nearby communities, with a specific focus on the domains of employment and community identity. Diversifying funding sources, implementing technology to improve forest management, establishing ecotourism, and collaborating with academic institutions to conduct research on sustainable forest management are all recommendations for the MACF.
Keywords
Community-Based Forestry, Conservation Practices, Sustainable Forest Management, Adaptive Management Strategies and Local Legitimacy
Introduction
Geographical Location and Environmental Background
The MACF, situated a short distance from the potentially active stratovolcano Mt. Adams in the Cascade Range[2], predominantly lies within the Mount Adams Recreation Area of the Yakama Indian Reservation[3]. Located outside of Glenwood, it comprises over 1,800 acres of smaller forest parcels (as of September 2023) and connects with the Conboy National Wildlife Refuge[4]. This area is significant as a watershed and wildlife habitat, featuring dense conifer forests, streams, and a diverse ecosystem supporting various plant and animal species[1].
This region has diverse climatic and topographical conditions and continues to face numerous environmental challenges that influence the evolution and composition of its forest ecosystems.
First of all, as one of the younger High Cascade Mountains, Mt. Adams has well-drained gray sandy loam soil, with fire recurrence intervals ranging from 50 to 200 years, more frequent at lower elevations. Therefore, there are risks of volcanic disasters in and around the area, including volcanic ash, lahars, lahar flows, etc. In particular, the nearby Mount St. Helens volcano is the main source of volcanic disasters in the region, and its erupted volcanic ash may have a serious impact on local life, transportation, and aviation safety. Therefore, it is important for residents and relevant agencies in the area to have knowledge about volcanic hazards and to develop corresponding action plans[2].
Besides, the forests in this region, dominated by shade-tolerant, force-seeded coniferous species such as spruce and fir (Picea spp.), have evolved under the influence of fire throughout history. These long intervals between fires have been pivotal in establishing the current forest composition[5]. But the wildfires' frequency and intensity were exacerbated by climate change, altering the forest composition. Climate change has led to changes in mountain snowpack dynamics, seasonal temperatures, and summer fuel dryness. Human-caused temperature rise and increasing vapor pressure deficit also exacerbate fuel drought in continental U.S. western forests[6]. These changes have rendered the forests more susceptible to extensive and intense wildfires[7]. These wildfires have been particularly impactful in limiting forest recovery and altering the natural fire regimes that these ecosystems have adapted to over the centuries [8].
Additionally, the region confronted issues related to pest infestations like the Western Spruce Budworm (WSB) and Mountain Pine Beetle (MPB), impacting forest health and dynamics. These pests have significantly affected mid-to-high-elevation alpine and subalpine forests, influencing factors like burn severity, fire temperature and spread, biomass depletion, and post-fire tree regeneration, which has compounded the challenges posed by wildfires, leading to a complex interplay of ecological disturbances[8].
History of MACF and MARS
The development of community-driven forestry and land stewardship in Washington State is the subject of MACF's history.
Background of the Establishment
In the early 2000s, as public awareness of the importance of community forestry increased, community organizations from across Washington State initiated communication and meetings with nonprofit land trusts in an effort to promote locally owned community forestry initiatives[9]. Glenwood was formerly an unincorporated timber town located in southern Washington's Klickitat County. Concerns have been raised by members of the local community regarding a range of significant social and environmental matters, which include the conversion of forest land to different functional uses, the erosion of traditional uses of local land, the dependence of the economic structure on extractivism, and the vulnerability to wildfires[10][11].
As a local response to concerns regarding regional land management trends, MARS was founded in 2004 against this background[1]. As a central strategy, the organization has designated community-based forest ownership. Stakeholders have also realized that by effectively acquiring priority forests, the risk of arable land depletion caused by fire susceptibility can be mitigated. Additionally, by managing assets in a restorative manner, the organization can guarantee that the community will obtain sustainable income that can be reinvested into exemplary forest management[10].
Early Challenges
At first, community participation was unsatisfactory, with many community members not participating in public meetings due to skepticism and a lack of understanding of the concept of community forestry. There were individuals who expressed skepticism regarding the capacity of a nascent and small organization to procure forestland through fundraising, while others were concerned that such an organization was a manifestation of political opportunism and could not truly represent the interests of the community[10].
Consequently, rather than hastening to complete acquisitions, MARS concentrated on establishing outreach, information transfer, and community engagement initiatives. MARS convened a working group in 2008–2009 with the objective of formulating management strategies for prospective areas within the MACF. Professional foresters, forestry contractors, ranchers, and conservationists from various industries comprise the group[10].
An important turning point occurred during a trip to New England in 2009. Twelve community members personally experienced community forests in New Hampshire and Maine, and the real feedback from local members strengthened their trust in MARS[12]. This was critical to building local support for community forests and ultimately strengthening the local legitimacy of MARS[13]. As many as thirty members of the community participated in subsequent public meetings in order to voice their concerns and interests and establish priorities for the community forest[10].
Forest Land Acquisition Process
In 2010, following a consensus on community interests, MARS initiated fundraising efforts, land acquisition, and other pertinent activities[10].
In 2011, MARS acquired 100 acres of Mill Pond and associated forest lands outside of Glenwood. As of December 2020, that number has increased to 288 acres. This acquisition represents a significant advancement in community-based forest management in the state and establishes MARS as the first non-profit organization to operate a community forest model within its jurisdiction[1][10].
In 2014, MARS acquired a second 300-acre Pine Flats Forest situated along a county highway connecting Trout Lake and Glenwood. The land has undergone multiple ownership transitions, including a period when it was a component of the renowned Klickitat Tree Farm. Before being included in the MACF, partial clearance occurred for the last time in the mid-1980s. MARS thinned the southern half of the forest commercially during the winter of 2015 in order to increase light penetration and liberate the healthiest trees[1].
In 2015, community leaders established the Northwest Community Forest Coalition (NWCW), an organization whose mission was to assist in the emergent, development, and management of community forests in the states of the Pacific Northwest as more stakeholders became interested in opening up locally owned community forest initiatives[10][14]. Sustainable Northwest, a non-profit organization headquartered in Portland, offers operational and administrative support to the coalition in its efforts to establish this community of practice[14].
In 2019, the Klickitat Rim Tract, a 424-acre property situated approximately 8 miles east of Glenwood, was acquired by MARS. The woodland well fulfills the various objectives of the MACF by serving as a location for sustainably harvested timber, facilitating the production of high-quality logs via extended rotations, and furnishing a habitat for numerous species, including western gray squirrels, black-tailed deer, and black bears[1].
The largest community forest purchase to date, the 800-acre South Conboy Tract, which is adjacent to the Conboy Lake National Wildlife Refuge, was completed in September 2023. In addition to being the most productive tree-planting location under MACF stewardship, the region offers seasonal hunting and hiking opportunities. In early 2024, MARS will collaborate with the local community to formulate an elaborate management strategy for the property[1].
MARS has thus far completed six land acquisitions, bringing the total land ownership of MACF through September 2023 to 1,800 acres[4]. MARS will further collaborate with partners in the future to establish an efficient conservation and forest management framework for the Mt. Adams region while expanding MACF through purchases[1].
Conservation Objectives and Adaptive Management
Native Americans historically used controlled burns in lower-elevation Cascade Mountains forests to maintain hunting and foraging locations and in higher-elevation woods to promote huckleberry growth. Since the early 20th century, the U.S. Forest Service has administered the western portions of Mt. Adams, while First Nations have managed the eastern halves. This history of fire suppression by the USFS, in addition to logging, and grazing in the late 19th and 20th centuries have shaped the landscape and ecological dynamics of the region[8].
The conservation approaches and practices at MACF are multifaceted, emphasizing sustainable resource management, habitat restoration, and innovative approaches to address environmental challenges. These practices are a blend of traditional knowledge and modern scientific methods.The primary conservation objectives of MACF focus on maintaining and enhancing the forest's ecological integrity, biodiversity, and landscape connectivity. This involves managing the forest for a mix of age classes and species, ensuring long-term forest health and resilience[10]. MARS's diverse conservation approaches include sustainable timber harvesting, habitat restoration, and controlled burning[1][15]. These practices aimed to mitigate wildfire risks, promote ecological diversity, and support local economies.
Sustainable Timber Harvesting
A significant aspect of MACF's conservation strategy is sustainable timber harvesting. This approach not only supports the local economy but also ensures the health and resilience of the forest ecosystem. MARS implemented selective thinning practices, focusing on removing specific trees to reduce forest density and promote the growth of remaining trees. This practice is crucial in maintaining forest health, as overly dense forests are more susceptible to diseases and pests[10].
Habitat Restoration and Invasive Species Management
Habitat restoration initiatives, particularly in the South Conboy Tract and Mill Pond-Outlet Creek parcel, form an integral part of MACF's conservation practices. These efforts include replanting native species and restoring natural habitats that support a wide range of flora and fauna. Invasive species management is also a critical component, ensuring that native species thrive without competition from non-native species. MARS's collaboration with the Yakama Nation in watershed restoration through beaver dam analog construction is a notable example of such efforts[1][15].
Controlled Burning and Fuel Reduction
Controlled burning, also known as prescribed fire, is another key practice in MACF. This method is used to reduce the amount of combustible material (fuel) in the forest, thereby lowering the risk of severe wildfires. Controlled burns also play a vital role in maintaining the ecological balance by helping certain plant species regenerate and maintaining habitat diversity[16]. The effectiveness of this approach in the MACF context is corroborated by the Washington Prescribed Fire Council’s case study on MARS[17]. Another critical aspect is the shift towards cultivating fire- and drought-resistant tree species[8]. By selecting species better suited to the expected climatic conditions, MACF ensures a more resilient forest composition capable of withstanding the predicted increases in temperature and fire frequency[18].
Economic Viability and Community Engagement
The economic viability and community participation aspects of MACF are core tests of its success as a sustainable forest management model[19].
Socio-Economic Impact
From 2014 to 2017, MACF's activities contributed significantly to the regional economy. The focus on sustainable forestry practices not only preserved the environment but also bolstered the local economy. MARS's initiatives generated employment opportunities, particularly in forest management and conservation efforts, contributing to the economic resilience of the community[10]. Community engagement in MACF's management has been a key element of its economic strategy. For instance, the collaboration with local contractors for forest management tasks like thinning, controlled burning, and habitat restoration projects provided local employment while enhancing forest health. This approach ensured that the economic benefits of forest management were retained within the community, fostering a sense of ownership and responsibility among residents.
Community Forest Management
MARS's model of community forest management prioritizes local input and decision-making[1]. By engaging local stakeholders in the management process, MARS ensured that the forest management strategies aligned with the community's needs and values. This participatory approach strengthened the bond between the community and the forest, creating a sense of collective stewardship.
Economic Contributions to Local Industries
A significant aspect of MACF's economic impact was its contribution to the local timber industry. Sustainable timber harvesting practices provided a steady supply of wood products to local mills, supporting one of Washington's thriving forestry workforces. This approach not only ensures the sustainability of forest resources but also contributes to job security in the community. The forestry practices employed by MACF, such as selective logging and controlled thinning, are designed to maintain the health of the forest while supplying timber to local businesses. These practices have been shown to support a considerable portion of the local workforce, which is heavily reliant on forestry-related employment[20].
The economic benefits of MACF extend beyond direct employment in forestry operations. The timber supplied to local mills fosters a range of secondary industries, including milling, carpentry, and transportation. This creates a ripple effect throughout the local economy, as these industries support additional jobs and contribute to the overall economic health of the region. For instance, the processed timber from MACF not only meets local demands but also attracts businesses from outside the region, bringing additional economic benefits to the community.
By working closely with local mills and contractors, MARS ensures that the economic gains from forestry practices are reinvested in the community. This collaboration extends to educational and research institutions, which can provide technical expertise and innovative practices to enhance the efficiency and sustainability of timber harvesting[10]. This partnership approach ensures that the forest resources are managed not only for immediate economic benefits but also for long-term sustainability and community resilience.
Support for Ecotourism and Recreation
MACF's management practices have supported the development of ecotourism and recreational activities. By maintaining public access to the forest and conserving its natural beauty, MACF has become a destination for outdoor enthusiasts[21]. This aspect of forest management has not only contributed to local economic diversification but also raised awareness about the importance of sustainable forest management practices.
Tenure arrangements
The tenure arrangements of the MACF are a fundamental aspect of its management and conservation practices. The tenure arrangements that underpin the management and conservation practices of the MACF are fundamental in nature. The aforementioned arrangements establish the operational and legal framework that governs MACF, consequently impacting the organization's efficacy and sustainability in the long term and in its pursuit of ecological and social goals.
Nature of Tenure
The MACF is administered by the MARS in accordance with a community-based, non-profit ownership model. The significance of this model lies in the fact that it signifies a shift from the region's conventional forest management methods, which were primarily characterized by industrial or government ownership[13]. MARS's non-profit status enables a forest management approach that is more adaptable and community-oriented, with an emphasis on sustainable use, community benefits, and conservation. Ensuring community members and stakeholders are involved in planning and management helps forests be managed in a way that is consistent with community needs and values. Provide recreational opportunities, protect cultural values, and support local economies through sustainable forestry practices while protecting and enhancing local ecosystems.
The tenure of the MACF is defined by the ownership of land parcels acquired by MARS. The first land acquisition of MARS was negotiated with Conservation Forestry, a Timber Investment Management Organization (TIMO) based in Exeter, New Hampshire, which acquired more than 10,000 acres of the former Klickitat Tree Farm in 2008. The funding for the acquisition of the Mill Pond property, which had a sale price of $50,000, was entirely reliant on individual donations. These donations were primarily from residents of the Glenwood and Trout Lake Valleys, with the largest donation coming from a supporter in Vancouver, Washington. The donations varied in size, ranging from $25 to $10,000[10][13].
In regard to the second land acquisition, Pine Flats Forest, MARS initially endeavored to secure a $400,000 grant from the Community Forest Program of the United States Forest Service (USFS); however, its application was not granted in the initial round. As a consequence, MARS acquired a one-year extension for its purchase and sale agreement with Conservation Forestry for a sum of $10,000. Later, in 2013, MARS received funding from the USFS Program, complemented by a $150,000 grant from the MJ Murdock Charitable Trust and over $250,000 in donations from individuals and small foundations[10]. USFS Community Forest Program funding encourages forest preservation as a community resource and discourages land use change or sale[12].
This was followed by further acquisitions, including the Klickitat Rim Tract and South Conboy Tract, significantly expanding the MACF's scope and scale. Successful acquisitions of land also greatly enhanced MARS's local legitimacy[13].
Duration and Management Agreements
The tenure of these land parcels is perpetual, ensuring long-term conservation and sustainable management[22].
During the period from 2014 to 2017, MARS utilized its knowledge and proficiency in overseeing MACF to establish a management agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the purpose of carrying out forest restoration endeavors on the 7,000-acre Lake Conboy National Wildlife Refuge[15]. These agreements extend MARS’s stewardship beyond its owned parcels, contributing to broader landscape-level conservation efforts.
Collaborative Governance
The governance of MACF under MARS involves collaboration with various stakeholders, including local communities, government agencies, and indigenous groups[1]. This collaborative model is integral to its tenure arrangements, ensuring that management decisions align with diverse interests and are grounded in local ecological knowledge and values, which contribute to the social, economic, and ecological well-being of the region[23].
The MARS Board of Directors, reflecting a broad spectrum of expertise and community representation, plays a pivotal role in this governance structure. The Board comprises diverse individuals, including Jim White, a retired silviculturist from the USFS and former manager of the Underwood Conservation District; Jeanette Burkhardt, a biologist with Yakama Nation Fisheries; Bengt Coffin, a retired hydrologist from the USFS; Doug Comstock, a financial advisor; Jim Dean, a construction company owner; Emily Jane Davis, an assistant professor at Oregon State University's College of Forestry; Karen Black Jenkins, a professional arborist; Tom Reynolds, a retired judge and attorney; and Nina Vinyard, a community member from Glenwood[1].
This diverse composition facilitates a holistic approach to forest management at Mt. Adams, integrating scientific knowledge, local perspectives, and practical experience, which is increasingly recognized as crucial in managing forest resources sustainably while addressing broader ecological and social objectives[23].
Stakeholders Classification
The MACF presents a complex matrix of affected and interested stakeholders, each with distinct objectives and varying levels of influence. Understanding these stakeholders is crucial in assessing the conservation and stewardship practices of MACF.
| Stakeholders | Objectives & Powers | Status
(Affected / Interested) |
Relative Influence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Local Community Members | The immediate local community members of Glenwood and surrounding areas are pivotal stakeholders. Their main objectives include maintaining access to the forest for traditional uses such as hunting, fishing, and firewood gathering, ensuring local employment opportunities, and protecting their homes and lands from wildfire risks.
Their power is significant in terms of local decision-making and community support but can be limited in broader policy discussions[1][10]. |
Affected | High importance; High influence |
| MARS | As the managing organization, MARS aims to balance ecological sustainability with community development and economic viability.
MARS holds considerable power in decision-making and management practices within MACF, directly influencing conservation and stewardship strategies[1][13]. |
Affected | High importance; High influence |
| Indigenous Groups (notably the Yakama Nation) | They focus on the preservation of traditional ecological knowledge, sustainable land practices, and recognition of their historical ties to the land.
Their influence is growing, especially in light of national movements for indigenous rights, but can vary depending on the specific issue at hand[1][23]. |
Affected | High importance; Medium influence |
| Timber Industry and Contractors | Local and regional timber businesses depend on MACF for sustainable timber supply. Their objective is to ensure a steady flow of timber resources while adhering to sustainable practices.
Their power is economic, influencing local job markets and contributing to regional economies.[10]. |
Affected | High importance; High influence |
| U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Other Government Agencies | These agencies are interested in the conservation of biodiversity, sustainable land management, and compliance with federal and state environmental regulations.
They possess significant power, especially in regulatory and funding aspects, impacting broader conservation practices[10][15]. |
Interested | Medium importance; Medium influence |
| Conservation Organizations (Such as: NWCW) | These groups focus on preserving biodiversity, advocating for sustainable forest management practices, and mitigating climate change impacts.
Their power lies in advocacy, research, and the ability to mobilize public opinion and resources, though direct decision-making power in MACF is limited[10][14]. |
Interested | Low importance; Low influence |
| Research and Academic Institutions | Their main interest is in conducting research on sustainable forestry, climate change impacts, and ecological conservation.
They hold intellectual and informational power, influencing through knowledge generation and dissemination. |
Interested | Low importance; Low influence |
| Tourism and Recreation Businesses | These stakeholders seek to leverage the forest for recreation and tourism, emphasizing sustainable and eco-friendly practices.
Their power is primarily economic, influencing local economies and potentially shaping forest management practices to favor tourism-friendly activities[1][10]. |
Interested | Medium importance; High influence |
| Policy Makers and Legislators | Their focus is on developing and implementing policies that balance conservation, economic development, and social welfare.
They wield significant power, particularly in shaping the legal and policy framework within which MACF operates. |
Interested | Medium importance; High influence |
| Trust Company (Such as Columbia Land Trust) | There is a partnership between the trust and MARS. The trust’s financial assistance to MARS will help it acquire land and further expand the scope of MACF[24].
Their power is mainly in economic terms, which will affect the effective operation of MARS's forest management and the expansion of land ownership. |
Interested | High importance; High influence |
Critical Issues
Challenges in Funding and Resource Allocation
Dependence on External Funding
The MACF, like many community-managed forests, relies heavily on external funding sources. This includes grants from governmental bodies, donations, and contributions from environmental organizations. The reliance on such variable funding sources can lead to uncertainty in long-term planning and resource allocation[20].
Resource Allocation for Conservation vs. Economic Activities
Allocating resources between conservation efforts and economic activities such as sustainable timber harvesting is a delicate balance[25]. MACF stores 23,444 metric tons of carbon dioxide and projects updated carbon reserves depending on harvest operations[10].
Measures of Livelihoods and Equity
Typically, community forests focus primarily on quantifiable assessment criteria such as economic activity and employment, but factors such as community assets, social capital, culture, poverty, and vulnerability also need to be clearly addressed or measured in this context[26]. A forest management framework built on understanding the vulnerability of landscapes to future climate change can provide a better basis for managing forest landscapes and maintaining the health and vitality of ecosystems[27].
Assessment
MACF's governance model exemplifies a multi-level, multi-scale approach, integrating local community input with broader environmental and policy frameworks. The forest's management strategies have evolved in response to increasing wildfire severity, necessitating adaptive governance structures and synergy that include local and federal stakeholders[8][23].
MARS's role transcends traditional NGO functions, navigating a landscape shaped by neoliberal governance while striving for local legitimacy through micro-political processes of relationship-building and effective project implementation[13]. This approach ensures that the governance of MACF is not just about ecological stewardship but also about fostering community development and resilience.
Recommendations
Integrating Technology for Enhanced Management
Implementing advanced technologies like satellite monitoring and GIS for forest health assessment can provide crucial data for adaptive management strategies[28].
Diversifying Funding Sources
To reduce reliance on external grants and donations, MACF can explore alternative revenue streams. For example, ecotourism can provide economic benefits while promoting conservation awareness among visitors and locals alike. Besides, partnerships with private entities can reduce dependence on fluctuating governmental funds and open avenues for innovative forest management technologies and practices.
Long-term and Transparent Financial Plan
Developing a long-term and transparent financial plan open to the public that incorporates various scenarios and funding sources can help MACF manage its resources more effectively, which can help drive and influence project outcomes through public oversight of transparent plans[29]. This plan should include strategies for both lean and abundant funding periods, ensuring a consistent approach to forest management.
Investment in Research and Monitoring
Allocating resources towards research and monitoring can provide data to support grant applications and demonstrate the effectiveness of MACF’s management strategies. This could also help in attracting funding from academic institutions and research grants focused on environmental conservation and sustainable forestry.
This conservation resource was created by Course:FRST522. | |
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 1.11 1.12 1.13 1.14 1.15 1.16 "Mt. Adams Community Forest". Mt. Adams Resource Stewards. 2023.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Scott, William E.; Iverson, Richard M.; Vallance, James W.; Hildreth, Wes (1995). "Volcano Hazards in the Mount Adams Region, Washington". U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 95–492.
- ↑ "Mt. Adams Summit". U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2023.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 "Mt. Adams Community Forest expands". Columbia Gorge News. Dec 12, 2023.
- ↑ Kirilenko, Andrei P.; Sedjo, Roger A. (December 11, 2007). "Climate change impacts on forestry". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 104.
- ↑ Abatzoglou, John T.; Williams, A. Park (October 10, 2016). "Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 113.
- ↑ Halofsky, Jessica E.; Peterson, David L.; Harvey, Brian J. (27 January 2020). "Changing wildfire, changing forests: the effects of climate change on fire regimes and vegetation in the Pacific Northwest, USA". Fire Ecology. 16.
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 Busby, Sebastian U.; Moffett, Kevan B.; Holz, Andrés (18 September 2020). "High-severity and short-interval wildfires limit forest recovery in the Central Cascade Range". Ecosphere. 11 (9).
- ↑ Lyman, Martha West (2007-08-01). "Community Forests: A Community Investment Strategy". Issue Lab. Community Forest Collaborative.
- ↑ 10.00 10.01 10.02 10.03 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.07 10.08 10.09 10.10 10.11 10.12 10.13 10.14 10.15 10.16 10.17 10.18 10.19 Ganguly, Indroneil; Webster, Maxwell; McLaughlin, Jay; Pierobon, Francesca; Gopalakrishnan, Badri Narayanan; Bormann, Bernard; Jacobs, Olivia; Comfort, Cyndi; Kaemingk, Gabe (September 2018). "Economic Impacts of the Mt. Adams Community Forest, 2014–2017" (PDF). the Washington Department of Natural Resources.
- ↑ Coop, Jonathan D; Parks, Sean A; Stevens-Rumann, Camille S; Crausbay, Shelley D; Higuera, Philip E; Hurteau, Matthew D; Tepley, Alan; Whitman, Ellen; Assal, Timothy (2020). "Wildfire-Driven forest conversion in western North American landscapes". BioScience. 70 (8).CS1 maint: display-authors (link)
- ↑ 12.0 12.1 McGinley,, Kathleen A.; Charnley, Susan; Cubbage, Frederick W.; Hajjar, Reem; Frey, Gregory E.; Schelhas, John; Hovis, Meredith; Kornhauser, Kailey (2022). Bulkan, Janette; Palmer, John; Larson, Anne M.; Hobley, Mary (eds.). Community forest ownership, rights, and governance regimes in the United States. ISBN 9780367488710.CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link)
- ↑ 13.0 13.1 13.2 13.3 13.4 13.5 Molden, Olivia; Abrams, Jesse; Davis, Emily Jane; Moseley, Cassandra (February 2017). "Beyond localism: The micropolitics of local legitimacy in a community-based organization". Journal of Rural Studies. 50: 60–69.
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 "The Coalition". Northwest Community Forest Coalition. 2023.
- ↑ 15.0 15.1 15.2 15.3 "MT Adams Resource Stewards". Candid. GuideStar. 2023.
- ↑ Wear, Daniel (Nov 16 2023). "A NWCFC Visit to Mt. Adams Community Forest". The Northwest Community Forest Coalition. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ "MARS case study - Fire". Washington Prescribed Fire Council. 2016.
- ↑ Brockerhoff, Eckehard G.; Barbaro, Luc; Castagneyrol, Bastien; Forrester, David I.; et al. (2017). "Forest biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and the provision of ecosystem services". Biodivers Conserv. 26.
- ↑ Bray, David Barton (2021). "It takes communities to save forests". Nature Sustainability. 4.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 "Forest Legacy 2023 Funded Projects". U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - Forest Service. 2023.
- ↑ Lawler, Julia H.; Bullock, Ryan C. L. (March 2017). "A Case for Indigenous Community Forestry". Journal of Forestry. 115 (2): 117–125.
- ↑ Gilmour, Don (2016). "Forty years of community-based forestry". The Food and Agriculture Organization. ISBN 978-92-5-109095-4.
- ↑ 23.0 23.1 23.2 23.3 Davis, Emily Jane; Hajjar, Reem; Charnley, Susan; Moseley, Cassandra; Wendel, Kendra; Jacobson, Meredith (February 2020). "Community-based forestry on federal lands in the western United States: A synthesis and call for renewed research". Forest Policy and Economics. 111.
- ↑ Kosa, Jay (January 24th, 2020). "A Community Forest Grows". Columbia Land Trust. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ Hua, Fangyuan; Bruijnzeel, L. Adrian; Meli, Paula; Martin, Philip A.; Zhang, Jun; et al. (17 March 2022). "The biodiversity and ecosystem service contributions and trade-offs of forest restoration approaches". Science. 376.
- ↑ Danks, Cecilia; Everett, Yvonne (2022). Bulkan, Janette; Palmer, John; Larson, Anne M.; Hobley, Mary (eds.). Community-based forestry in the western United States: Reimagining the role of communities in federal forest management. ISBN 9780367488710.
- ↑ Keenan, Rodney J. (2015). "Climate change impacts and adaptation in forest management: a review". Annals of Forest Science. 72.
- ↑ Kayet, Narayan; Pathak, Khanindra; Chakrabarty, Abhisek; Kumar, Subodh; Chowdary, Vemuri Muthayya; Singh, Chandra Prakash (08 Dec 2020). "Risk assessment and prediction of forest health for effective geo-environmental planning and monitoring of mining affected forest area in hilltop region". Geocarto International. 37. Check date values in:
|date=(help) - ↑ Brooks, Jeremy; Waylen, Kerry Ann; Mulder, Monique Borgerhoff (2013). "Assessing community-based conservation projects: A systematic review and multilevel analysis of attitudinal, behavioral, ecological, and economic outcomes". Environmental Evidence. 2.