Table 1. Projects included in the survey.

Project Location Summary
Tongass Wide Young Growth Studies Alaska 4-yr, $7M federally led project to study the effect of stand thinning to encourage deer forage at stem-exclusion stage; four trials, 20 replicates; strengthened by high level of trust among members in different state agencies; high public visibility
Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project: Arizona 7-yr, $1M, 3000-ha NGO-led study to restore forest health and fire-resistant stand structures at the urban interface; seven thinning trials with replication; restoration goals achieved through stakeholder workshops; decisions require unanimous agreement among 24 partner organizations; challenge of finding commercial market for biomass
McCully Creek Watershed British
Columbia
4-yr, $25,000, 25,000-ha provincially led project to study stand and watershed response under alternative thinning and small-area harvest entries; motivated by an economic and environmental “crisis of change”; challenge of maintaining momentum during staff turnover and sequence of single-year funding
Forest Grassland Study British
Columbia
Industry-led project to control forest encroachment of grasslands; planned as stand-scale multi-year trials; challenge of not providing operational results in 1–2 years; perception of high cost and company purchase in industry consolidation
Adaptive Management of Pine–Lichen Woodlands British
Columbia
6-yr, $188,000,1000-ha industry-led project thinning to discover silvicultural ways to enhance lichen for mountain caribou following harvest; nine trials, three replicates at stand scale; motivated by desire to avoid land-use conflict; challenge of administrative centralization
Coast Forest Strategy British
Columbia
6-yr, $3.8M, 800,000-ha industry-led variable retention harvesting and landscape zoning to maintain biodiversity; nine trials at stand and watershed scale motivated by ecological and aesthetic impact of clearcut; good cooperation among government, staff; including training and information sharing between companies; independent peer-review panel; key outcome: do a few things well, not many things poorly
Donna Creek AM Trial British
Columbia
15-yr, $250,000, 6000-ha province–industry partnership study to maintain snags and bird habitat; three replicated stand-level trials; strengthened by consistent funding; would be improved by additional replication, better spatial separation, and configuration of trials
Ospika Mountain Goat AM Trial British
Columbia
7-yr, $1.1M province–industry partnership to determine whether goat migration is influenced by cut blocks at watershed scale; challenge of small goat population sample, interactions/negotiation among forest licensees to design experimental cut blocks
Almanor Forest Group Selection Harvesting California 38,000-ha industry-led study of small openings to encourage natural regeneration of high-value pine
Ponderosa Pine Forest Partnership Colorado 11-yr, $38,000, 4000-ha federally led project to restore normal ecosystem; trials involve group thinning and prescribed burn, motivated by need to restore ecosystem with natural range of variation in stand structure; challenge of finding market for small-dimension wood, expertise in prescribed burn; approaches shifted from academic–rigorous to pragmatic–less rigorous over time.
Sustainable Mixed Wood Practices in a Stand Level AM Framework Ontario 7-yr, $1M provincially led partial harvesting to find sustainable operational practices for mixedwood ecosystems; motivated by poor understanding of postharvest stand dynamics; included AM training for all partners; challenge of time required to gain knowledge; staff turnover
Riparian Function Study Oregon 3-yr, $115,000 state-led study at plot-to- stand scale, 24 trials motivated by need to maintain stream debris following harvest; good stakeholder support; design would be improved by BACI (Before-After Control-Impact) and more replicates, improved attention to fish impacts at the design step
Blue River Landscape Study Oregon 12-yr, $1.8M, 23,000-ha federally led as part of the Northwest Forest Plan, focus on emulation of natural disturbance patterns and sustainable timber supply; strengthened by two key champions, steady funding, history of science–management in area; challenged by time required to gain knowledge, political climate, AM experiments curtailed by wildlife protection regulations
Five Rivers Landscape Management Project Oregon 8-yr, $1.5M, 13,000-ha federally led stand- and landscape-level study as part of the Northwest Forest Plan, goal to maintain late-successional stands with harvest supply through thinning; strength was to make learning a NEPA goal; to link science to decisions; challenge of lack of high-level commitment, fear of legal action, limited public capacity for involvement
Applegate AM Area Oregon 9-yr, $1M, 202,000-ha, federally led suite of many small projects; replicated trials to reduce bark beetle risk, prescribed burning trials; involved collaborative public involvement; limited integrated documentation
Commercial Thinning and Swiss Needle Cast: Oregon 8-yr, $1.6M state-led trials with replicates to understand effects of fungal infection on Douglas-fir, options for thinning that minimize outbreaks, response of host tree to disease
Culvert Replacement Program Oregon 4-yr, $350K industry-led project to improve fish passage through culverts; compared different configurations and acceptance by spawners
Leave Tree Harvesting System for Appalachian Hardwoods Virginia 5-yr, $50K, 142,000-ha industry-led study to find partial-harvest alternatives to clearcut that promote natural regeneration, improve wildlife habitat; strengthened by good leadership, cooperation with researchers, small trials to demonstrate results; challenge of historical inertia and clearcut tradition; markets for smaller trees
Forests and Fish Report Washington 8-yr, 3,200,000-ha, $24M industry-led effort aimed at creating a management framework among all state stakeholders, reducing uncertainty in stream habitats affected by forest practices; over 50 research needs identified, using AM as key feature
Costs are 2006 U.S. dollars; more extensive summaries are found in Appendix 4 of Marmorek et al. (2006).