Pacific Northwest Research Station
Strategic Planning Workshop
June 1st -- La Grande Meeting
NOTE: The italicized wording is from my notes of the conversation will the presentation
was happening. The non-italicized is straight off the flip charts. -- Kathy
Question 1: What natural resource issues, problem, or opportunities are we likely to
face within the next couple of decades that research could help resolve?
Group 1:
 Regulatory Requirements: constrained/enhanced future; how we are able to
manage our own lands under:
o ESA
o Clean Water Act
 Population
o Growth
o Increase presence in forest
 Balance:
o
o
o
natural environment with:
Recreation
Urban/tourism
Industry/infrastructure
 Credibility
o Land managers (lack of credibility)
o Scientific research (differing perspectives)
Group 2:
 Effects of recreation on terrestrial and aquatic resources
 Recreation demand and pressures on open space – particularly mechanized
recreation
 Focus on what only a government agency can do in long-term
 Economics and community sociology – declining timber sales
 Biological land classification and GIS systems
 Private timberlands productivity enhancement
 How to sustain industry and wood products while maintaining diverse private and
public forest lands – old growth and healthy soils
 Forests are what they eat. Sustainable soil
o Paramagnetism of soil and implications to management
 Keeping up with demographic change
o Both ethnic and generational
o Keeping in touch with a land ethic
 Alternatives to chemicals for all uses in forest lands and grasslands
 Declining populations of native ungulates and implications
 T&E species management -- wolves and implications (management of large
carnivores
 Understanding and dealing with cumulative effects
 Understanding trade offs and opportunities to intensively manage resources in some
places, while leaving other areas undisturbed.
Group 3:
 Effects of recreation on species and open space – technology: people and their toys
in more and more places; off road vehicles access and impacts
 Focus on what only a government agency can do in the long term:
o Long term productivity
o Community health – balancing act
o Alternative use of chemicals
o Soils
 Understanding demographic change
o Both ethnic and generational
 Continue existing long-term research
o Starkey
o Ungulates
o Roads
o T&E
 T&E species management; continual listing impacts; land mangers dilemmas;
integrated species management – more to recovery; social and economic impacts
 How to address human impacts on ecosystem: science needs to integrate human
values in needs
 Impacts (economic/political/biological) of fluctuations in policy direction, e.g.,
tourism versus small wood products versus restoration shifting direction/policy
for land managers and impacts/effects on communities trying to develop a niche)
 Sociological/economic change of environmental values, affecting landowners and
communities. Disenchanted landowners – changing land uses of private lands,
e.g., becoming unmanaged resources.
 Social issues probably highest priority, then biological, then specific problem
solving. I.e., priorities are changing from (current) priorities.
 How to use science to make long-term management decisions for public/private
landowners that provides checks/balances that isn’t offset by new science in the
short term. Maybe end-users should be part of the checks and balance review.
(Research needs to consider cumulative effects of applying science. Example:
wood in streams or out)
 Integrations of biological science with social and economic aspects of applying
science to facilitate decision makers.
 Need for common research database to facilitated managers; PNW does a good job
getting papers on web pages/internet
 Public perceptions versus land/resource reality; decision making on perceptions
or/versus reality (capacity to meet)
Question 2: Given these issues, problems, or opportunities, where might the Pacific
Northwest Research station make the most productive contributions, and why?
Group A:
 Communication
(3½ dots)
o To general public – lack of communication to general public
 Alaska Brochure – good example
o Science-based support of management decisions/credibility
 Education
(½ dot)
o Decision-makers: education of decision makers—wide variety
o Synthesis of scientific information for policy making
(5 dots)
o Connect with Eastern Oregon University and others
 Research – projections of management
o Continue long-term with key assumptions that have managers in mind;
information on key assumption for decisions
o Short term adaptive research ability
(1 dot)
o Fiscally unrewarding: (not chasing dollars; basic research)
(1 dot)
o Research on access: recreation and manage: implications to recreation
management (decision on allowing or denying access)
o Research on continued resource extraction
o Holistic – research – biophysical, social, economic
(2 dots)
o Integrated species at landscape level; projectors (models) of long term
management
(4 dots)
Group B:
 Provide scientific guidance for monitoring and evaluation (effectiveness and
validation monitoring): protocols, are assumptions valid
(3 dots)
o Maintain leadership in ecological research, especially long term (5 dots)
 Continue long-term research
 T&E
 System/holistic approach
 Soils/productivity
 Social/economic – models finding ways/predictive models to help communities
and public lands retain sustainable – predictable relationships (goods and
services)
(1 dot)

Need state-of-art tree productivity for private lands to help compensate for change
on public lands
(5 dots)
o Long term genetics research
o FVS, short-term models

Research on effects of OHV’s in specific areas on resources (soils and species)
noise, space
(4 dots
Trends in demographic change (those interested in natural resources or who may
influence policy change)
o Why?
 Access to information
 Social science function
 Tech transfer

Group C:
 Focus on vegetation and landscape issues and desired future processes/functions.
Develop/maintain relationships with those agencies/universities that should be
lead with species. Specific biology/ecology.
(2 dots)
o Why?
 Because this would be most meaningful information for Forest
Service and this is where Forest Service expertise is., Dichotomy
of agencies—e.g.: Forest Service has landscape management
specialties. Other agencies have the bio’s, etc.)
 Focus on integration between biological/social/economic aspects of applying
science. Try to accommodate multiple values.
(14 dots)
o Why?
 Facilitate more balanced land management decisions
 Look at how changing social/political values affect
o Forest Health management
o Recreational opportunities
o Economic values
o Why?
(1 dot)
 Provide mangers better information/forestry future
outputs/opportunities
 Helps prevent “broken promises”
 Forest planning
 Project planning
 Continue /begin long-term and large-scale studies
(2 dot)
o Ungulates
o Roads
o Recreation
o Quality of air/water/soil
o Disturbance regimes
o Why?


Provides baseline information to base land management decisions
on.
 Forest Service has capability and expertise to do this
Keep scientists connected with land managers/endorsers
(3 dot)
o Why?
 Help move scientist to the ground (end users)
 Provides scientist with instant feedback.
 Better understanding/acceptance of “science” by end users
Total number of dots:
Total participants:
57 dots
19 people