United States

Department of

Agriculture

Strategies and Recommendations

Pacfic Northwest

March 1995

for Addressing Forest Health

Issues in the Blue Mountains

of Oregon and Washington

Research Station

General Technical

Report

John A. Tanaka, G. Lynn Starr, andThomas M. Quigley

Forest Service

This file was created by scanning the printed publication. Text errors identified 

by the software have been corrected; however, some errors may remain. 
Authors JOHN A. TANAKA; is associate professor,Department of Agricultural and Resource

Economics, OregonState University, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR; 97850;

G. LYNN STARR is public affairs specialist and THOMAS M. QUIGLEY is range

scientist, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation, Forestry and Range Sciences Laboratory, 1401 Gekeler Lane, La Grande, OR 97850.
Abstract

I

Contents

Tanaka, John A.; Starr, G. Lynn; Quigley,Thomas M. 1995. Strategies and recommendationsfor addressing forest health issues inthe Blue Mountains of Oregonand

Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-350.Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. 18 p.

The Blue Mountains Natural ResourcesInstituteheldthree types of meetings to obtain

public and scientific input intothe developmentof strategies and recommendations for

addressing forest healthissues inthe Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington.

Seven strategies are proposed: (1) plan and implement management activities on a

landscape level; (2) enhancetraining and education on natural resourcesand forest

health; (3) facilitate public involvementin planning, decisionmaking, and implementing

solutions to natural resource problems; (4) develop aframework and implement an

operational integrated database for landscape-level planningand management;

(5) develop aframework and implement an integratedmonitoringsystem for landscapelevel planning and management; (6) assess economic and social effects of forest health

issues on people, communities, and the area, and assist with adaptationto change;

and (7)identify barriersto improving and protecting forest health, analyzethe effects

of alternatives, and recommend changes to alleviate barriers. The slate of issues and

opportunitiesto implement this strategy will evolve as society’s needs change and

scientific information becomes available.

Keywords: Forest health, Blue Mountains,landscape-level planning, economic and

social adaptation, public involvement.

1

2

2

3

8

8

8

8

9

9

12

16

17

Introduction

The Forest Health Situation

Changes in Ecosystem Conditions

Deadand DyingTrees

Threatened and Endangered Species

Watershed Conditions

RangelandCondition

Risk of Catastrophic Fires

Competing Interests

The Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute Response

Strategies and Recommendations

Conclusions

Literature Cited

Introduction The Blue Mountainsof northeastern Oregon and southeastern Washington are currently

experiencingsome of the most significantforest health problems inthe UnitedStates.

The situation has manifesteditself in millions of dead and dying trees and many related

naturalresourceproblems.The Blue MountainsNaturalResources Institute (BMNRI)

was formed in 1991,inpart to address this problem.The BMNRl is a partnership organizationof municipal,county, State, and Federalagencies, privatelandowners, producer

groups, NativeAmericans, environmental groups, and others interestedinthe management of natural resources.The BMNRI includes all or part of 10counties in Oregon and

4 in Washington (fig. 1) and covers over 19 million acres. The BMNRl area is generally

definedas those counties containingthe Malheur, Ochoco, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman NationalForests.One of the first roles the BMNRI hadwas to bringthe divergent partiestogether to discuss the problemsand potential solutions to forest health.

This paperwill providethe current view of the BMNRI on strategies to deal with the forest

healthissue on a landscape level inthe Blue Mountains.

The Oregon Department of Forestry (1991a) and the USDA Forest Service (Gast and

others 1991) haveeach developedplans to deal with forest health in the Blue Mountains.

Each effort focuses on the land ownership type for which that agency has management

responsibilities.The USDA ForestService strategic plan covers the Umatilla,WallowaWhitman, Malheur,and Ochoco National Forests and is coordinated withthe national

strategic plan of the USDA ForestService (USDA 1988, 1993).The Pacific Northwest

ResearchStation has developed programsto addressthe research, development,and

application aspects of dealingwith forest health (USDA 1991). In addition, a scientific

assessmentof National Forest lands ineastern Oregon and eastern Washington was

recently completed by Everett and others (1994).The Oregon Department of Forestry

(1991b) also discussed the forest health issue on State and private lands basedon its

strategic plan and is currently developing a joint strategic approach to fire protectionfor

the east side. The Oregon Department of Fish andWildlife1 has developed habitat criteriafor forested lands and discussed their views on forest health (Gladson 1991).

The strategies proposedby the BMNRl are based on scientific knowledge and public

inputthrough BMNRI-sponsored meetings and a review of strategic plans by the various

natural resourcemanagement agencies mentionedabove.The process of defining strategies must be an evolvingactivity as more is learned.Thus, what we believewill work to

improveforesthealthmay changethrough time. Land managerswill apply newtechniques

on the groundthat will be evaluated.Old paradigms will be rethought and new paradigms

developed. The whole concept of forest healthnecessitates this flexibility.

The USDA ForestService (USDA 1993, p. 4) defines forest health as a “conditionwhere

biotic and abiotic influences on the forest (for example, pests, atmospheric deposition,

silviculturaltreatments, and harvestingpractices) do notthreaten management objectives

for a given forest unit now or in the future.”Becauseof the role management objectives

play in definingforest health,the Forest Service went on to state that these objectives

“do not necessarily mean commercial products: objectives reflect the many uses and

values of forests, includingrecreation,wildlife, wilderness,timber, grazing, and water”

(USDA 1993, p. 4-5). The OregonDepartment of Forestry (1991a, 1991b) uses similar

wording in their definitionof forest health.

1

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Plan reviewcriteria. [No

date]. 27 p. On file with: Oregon Departmentof Fishand Wildlife,

4412 Silverton Road NE, Salem, OR 97305

1
Figure 1-Area comprisingthe Blue Mountains Natural Resources Institute, by county.

The Forest Health

Situation

The current forest healthsituation is likely the result of societal demands; past management decisions including, but not limitedto, natural resourcemanagement practices,

funding policiesfor naturalresource management, and fire suppression; and natural

occurrences of insects, diseases, and drought. The symptoms of the forest health situation are observed through factors such as the acres of dead and dying trees, watershed

conditions, numbers of threatened and endangeredspecies, rangelandcondition, and

acres at high risk of catastrophic fire. The symptoms will fluctuate in a dynamic ecosystem, but their presence highlights the needto address the causal factors. Each of these

symptoms will be discussed or illustrated as it relatesto the forest healthsituation. In

many cases, area-wide information is not knownfor all landownership types.

Changes inEcosystem

Conditions

The recently completed scientific assessment of forest lands in eastern Oregon and

Washington by Everett and others (1994) found several important changes inecosystem conditions over the last 40 to 55 years. Their majorfindings are presented below

(Everett and others 1994, p. 1):

Forest fragmentation and landscape diversity increased in intensively managed

watersheds, but declined in wilderness or roadless areas.

The acreage of early-seral, late-seral, and climax stands has decreased, while midseral stand acreage has increased.Additionally, the abundance of young and old forest structural stages has declined, and middle-aged structural stages have increased.

Such changes have important consequencesfor species and landscape diversity.

2
Significant differencesin insect and disease hazard severity were not detected at the

river basin level because of high within-basin variability; however, some watershed

hazardswere substantially changed.The largest increases and decreases in specific

insect or disease hazards indicatethat these disturbance processes have been

greatly altered by management.

Tree densities, fuel loads, fuel continuities, and fire hazards have increased in some

watersheds, and decreased in others. The assessment analysis was not ableto evaluate the contributionof green fuel laddersto fire hazards because appropriate fuel

modelswere unavailable; however, these fuels may be one of the most importantfire

hazardson the eastside.

Riparianvegetation and associatedfish habitats have been adversely affected in

many watersheds by grazing, roading, irrigation, and flood control practices.

Fire disturbanceregimes have been alteredthrough fire suppression especially on

sites adaptedto frequent, low- and moderate-severity fires.

Dead and DyingTrees Historically,the drier sites of the Blue Mountainsforests were dominated by ponderosa

pine (Pinusponderosa Dougl. ex Laws.) andwestern larch (Larix occidentalis Nutt.).

The stands were kept fairly open with relatively frequent ground fires that eliminated

seedlingsand more shade-tolerantand less fire-resistant tree species, such as Douglas-fir (Pseudutsuga menziesii (Mirb.) Franco),grandfir (Abies grandis (Dougl. ex D.

Don) Lindl.), and white fir (Abies concolur (Gord. & Glend.) Lindl. ex Hildebr.). With the

suppression of low-intensitygroundfires, these less-adapted specieswere allowedto

become more abundant over large areas. Stand density also increased. Selective harvesting of ponderosa pine and western larch acceleratedthe process of fir domination.

The result is a forest markedly differenttoday than that of a century ago (Starr and

Quigley 1992).

In recent years, an extendeddrought has occurred inthe Blue Mountains (Owenby and

Ezell 1992; U.S. Department of Commerce, no date) as has an insect and disease “epidemic.” The drought (fig.2)seems to have stressedthe now-dominantfirs, rendering

them more susceptible to insects and diseases (Wickman 1992).The dead and dying

trees are resulting in a massivefuel buildupwith an associatedincrease inthe risk of a

catastrophic wildfire and many other naturalresource impacts. Although precisefigures

of insect damage are unavailable, between2 and 4 million acres per year are estimated

to be affectedto various degrees (figs. 3and 4). Percentagesof timbered areas by land

ownershipaffectedby the various insectsfrom the 1991aerial insect survey are shown in

figures 5 and6.Western spruce budworm (Choristoneuraoccidentalis Freeman)appears

to be the most damaging insect (figs, 3 and 5). Repeateddefoliationfor 5to 7years may

result in heavy tree mortality (Wickman 1992).Figure 5 also shows the total acres of

each ownership inthe Blue Mountains. Most of the western spruce budworm infestation

appears to be occurring on National Forest lands in terms of both absolute and relative

area. Figure6 shows the relativeoccurrence of the fir engraver (Scolytus ventralis

LeConte), Douglas-firbark beetle (Dendructunuspseudotsugae Hopkins),mountainpine

beetle (Dendroctunusponderusae Hopkins) on ponderosapine, and others (Engelmann

spruce bark beetle (Dedroctonus rufipennis Kirby), western pine beetle (Dendroctonus

brevicomis LeConte)).Althoughthese insectsdo not seem to havethe widespread distributionof the western spruce budworm, their presence can leadto significant mortality in

a single season (fig. 4).

3
Figure2-Actual (bars) and average (solid lines) inches of precipitationreceived at five locations in Oregon from

1980to 1991.Source: U.S. Departmentof Commerce, NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (n.d.).

Federaltimber harvests have been important in these areas for the last 40 years (fig. 7).

The relative importance of harvestsfrom National Forests has risenfrom about 40 percent of the total harvest in 1950to between60 and 80 percent in the 1980s.The impact

of timber lossesfrom National Forest lands to insect damage can be significant to the

local economies.The large amount of dead and dyingtrees also can have significant

impactson other natural resourcevalues.The potentialfor future problems if the western

spruce budworm outbreak continues and infestationlevels become more serious can be

seen infigure 8. In 1991, most of the land affected by the western spruce budworm was

in the lighter infestationlevels.

4
Figure 3__Areas affected by the western spruce budworminthe Malheur,Ochoco, Umatilla,

and Wallowa-Whitman National Forests as detected by the 1991 aerial survey.

Figure 4__Areas affected by bark beetles in the Malheur,Ochoco, Umatilla, and WallowaWhitman National Forestsas detected bythe 1991 aerial survey.

5
Figure 5__Percentage of timbered area affected in 1991 by the western spruce

budworm and total timbered acres, by ownershipin the Blue Mountains.

Figure 6__Timbered area affected in 1991 by the Douglas-firbark beetle, fir

engraver, mountainpine beetle,and other insects, by land ownership inthe

Blue Mountains.

6
Figure 7__Timber harvest inthe Blue Mountainsduring selected years,

by land ownership. 

Figure 8__Acres affected by the western spruce budworm in 1991 by severity

rating on all land ownershipswithin and around three National Forests in the

Blue Mountains;1 reflects low severity and 4 severe.

7
Threatened and

Endangered Species

There are many sensitive, threatened, or endangered species of plantsand animals

present in the Blue Mountains.The most notable speciestoday is the Snake River

chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).These anadromous fish have experienced

precipitousdeclines in numbersof returningadults; this decline is probably due to a

combinationof in-stream dams, water withdrawals, commercial and sport fishing, and

spawning habitat degradation (Baron andThorgaard 1991, Nehlsenand others 1991,

Northwest Power PlanningCouncil 1987).Management of riparian areas and uplandsto

improve habitat quality may requiresignificant changes in many activities. The Upper

Grande Ronde River Basin has been the subject of recent focus on the problem of habitat degradation and salmon recovery.2

Watershed Conditions Riparianareas over much of the Blue Mountains have beensubjectedto many stresses.

Today we can see conditions that resultedfrom managementactions deemed proper in

the past. Grazing by large ungulates, logging, removal of woody debris, and other activities have ledto reduced shade, higher water temperatures, and increasedsiltation (Gast

and others 1991).Only about 28 to 32 percent of the watersheds in the Malheur National

Forest, 35 percent of the watersheds inthe Umatilla National Forest, and 70 percent of

the Wallowa-Whitman NationalForest are considered to be at or near their potential

(Gast and others 1991). “Potentialrefersto the inherent capability of a watershedto

producebiomass and function hydrologically as determinedby its physical, chemical,

and biological factors” (Gast and others 1991, p. 111-6).

RangelandCondition Rangeland, either grassland or shrubland, inthe Blue Mountainsis also below its ecological potential in many areas. The US. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land

Management (BLM), USDA Forest Service, andthe USDA Soil Conservation Service

collect informationon rangelandconditionand trend. In each case, the values derived

relatethe existing vegetationcommunity to the ecologic potential of the natural community and not to suitability for any particular management activity (for example, commodity production, threatenedor endangeredspecies habitat, recreation suitability, or visual

quality).Summary datafor Oregonwere published by the Society for RangeManagement in 1989 (fig. 9). Of more importance are data suggestingthat trend (directionof

change) is downwardon 5 percent of BLM land, on 17.5 percent of Forest Service land

(Pacific Northwest Region), and on 18 percent of all non-Federal rangelands (Societyfor

Range Management 1989). Whether or not these changes are good or badfrom the

viewpoint of society’s demands on rangelands cannot be inferreddirectly from these

numbers.They do indicatelandthat is movingaway from its ecological climax condition.

Risk of Catastrophic

Fires

Stand replacementfires haveoccurred historically in the Blue Mountains.The result of

these fires was a variation in stand structure, species, and age classes acrossthe landscape. Controlling thesefires has ledto widespread, even-aged stands.Tryingto re-create

and maintainthe healthy forest containingvarious successional stages will require creative approaches.Some combination of silvicultural practicesand fire may be necessary

along with other changes inmanagement and policies (Mutchand others 1993).There

are many unknownsabout the reintroductionof fire intothe ecosystems including “direct

USDA Forest Service, Wallowa-Whitman NationalForestand

Pacific Northwest Research Station, Oregon Department of Fish and 

Wildlife, Columbia River Inter-TribalFish Commission [and others],

1992. Upper Grande Ronde River anadromous fish habitat protection, restoration, and monitoring plan. Administrative document. On 

file with: La Grande District, 3502Highway 30, La Grande, OR

97850.

8
Figure 9-Ecological rangeland condition class in Oregon as reportedin 1989

by the Bureauof Land Management,USDA Forest Service, and Soil Conservation Service (Society for Range Management1989).

and indirectinteractionsamongfire and pests, pathogens, vegetation response,wildlife,

water, soil, nutrient distributionand cycling, and air quality” (Mutch and others 1993,p.9).

Present conditions have ledto unprecedentedfuel buildupwith very high risksfor catastrophic wildfire. Each National Forest in the Blue Mountains developeda map indicating that Forest’s susceptibility to large-scalecatastrophic wildfire (for example, fig. 10).

Although frequency of fires in the Blue Mountains has stayed relatively constant over

the past 20 years, total acres burned has increasedmarkedly (fig. 11).

Cornpeting Interests As in most naturalresource issues in the Western UnitedStates, the problem of forest

health inthe Blue Mountainsis compoundedby many different private and public landowners and other citizens and groups seeking input to the solutions. The Blue Mountains

land is dominated by the Wallowa-Whitman, Umatilla, Malheur, and Ochoco National

Forests.The BLM, NativeAmericans,and privatelandowners manage the majority of the

remaining lands (fig. 5).With the dominance of public lands inthe area, there is significant

pressurefrom local,State, and national interestgroups concerningmanagementof these

lands.The adjacent private landowners are affected by these management decisions as

well as by the success of public land management. It has taken us around a century to

get to where we are today, and it likely will take many years to “curethe patient” even

with cooperation among all parties.

The Blue Mountains 

Natural Resources 

Institute Response

As a way to formulate solutions to these problems, the BMNRI sponsoredthree types of

meetings-forums,a workshop, andtechnicalcommittees-eachwith adifferentpurpose.

Forumswere public meetings with presentations given by panelists representing the 

USDA ForestServiceas well as university scientists, forest managers,environmental

advocateorganizations,NativeAmericans,fish andwildlife professionals,timber manage9
Figure 10__Fire risk rating map for the Wallowa-Whitman NationalForest, 1992.

Figure 11-Total number of fires and acres burned in the Blue Mountains,

1970-91.

10
ment professionals,county governments, andthe timber industry.Eightforums were held

inOregon and one inWashington to share informationon the state of health of the forests andto gain an understandingof the public’s ideas on what to do about the problem.

Eachscientist and panelist gave a short presentationfollowed by questions and commentsfrom the audience and responsesby various speakers (Starr and Quigley 1992).

The Forest HealthWorkshopwas held November 20, 1991, in Pendleton,Oregon. The

purposeof the workshop was to discuss strategiesfor restoringforest health in the Blue

Mountains. It providedan opportunityfor participantsto meet others interested in forest

health, share informationon short-term strategies already in place, foster cooperation

among participants in dealingwithforest health, discuss strategies considered promising

by participants,and providea framework for cooperativeproblem-solvingfor the future.

Representativesfrom the BMNRI,Small Woodland Owners, Grant County (Oregon)

Stockgrowers, KinzuaCorporation,OregonDepartmentof Forestry, Oregon Department

of Fish and Wildlife, and the USDA Forest Servicegave short presentationson the current situation and short-termstrategies. The participantsthen divided themselves into

six groupsto address specific strategiesthat appearedpromising.The groups addressed

restoringhealthy ecosystems, preventingcatastrophic fires, minimizing loss from insects

and disease, economic stability, ensuring productionof products, and landowner and

public awareness. Each group tried to identify strategies that would leadto success in

reachingthe goal, befeasible, be generally accepted by the group, and be worth investing

time and effort in addressing.Responses to a preworkshop mailing requestingstrategies

were considered as were other strategies participantssuggested. Inthe time available,

work groups did not reachconsensuson the strategies; rather, a list of strategiesthat

generally appeared promisingwas generated.3

The final set of meetingswere the technical committee meetings, a formal, ongoing part

of the BMNRI. BMNRI committeeswere formed to address (1) biodiversity and noxious

weeds; (2) fish, riparian, and water quality; (3) forest productivityand protection; (4) sustainableforest and rangemanagement;(5) economic andsocial issues;(6) wildlif-game

and nongame; and (7)technology transfer, education, extension, and public relations.

The technology transfer committeewas later dropped and a committee on wood utilization and timber productswas added, but it was not functioning at the time of strategy

development. Each committee is composedof representativesfrom groups with diverse

interests and opinions, so that the full range of issues can be addressed. The technical

committees provideadviceon specific BMNRI programsof research, development, application, demonstration, and education; address priorities; recommendspecific studies;

review research, development, and demonstration proposals;and provide advice on

specific scientific issues. These committees meet as needed and provide input to the

board of directors and the BMNRI manager.The entire structure of the BMNRl is documentedin the charter of the Blue MountainsNatural Resources Institute. 4

Quigley, Thomas M. 1991. Memo dated December 6,1991 ,on

November 20 forest health workshop. 24 p. On file with: Blue

Mountains Natural ResourcesInstitute,1401Gekeler Lane,

La Grande, OR 97850.

Blue Mountains Natural ResourcesInstitute.1991. Charter and

program. Portland,OR: US. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest

Service, Pacific Northwest Region; Pacific Northwest Research

Station. 10 p. On file with: Blue Mountains Natural Resources

Institute, 1401 Gekeler Lane , LaGrande, OR 97850.

11
Basedon the informationcollectedfrom these three types of meetings and from the

various agency reports, the BMNRl offers the following strategies to deal with forest

health on a landscape level. The term "landscape level" is meant to imply that land ownership boundaries, although important, should not be barriersto addressingthe issues.

Individual landownerswill obviously have different objectives and incentivesfor management. Addressing all concerns in an integratedfashion is viewed as the overall strategy

being emphasized by the BMNRI.

The remainder of this paper will attempt to identify strategies that seem to have merit on

a landscape level. Becausethe BMNRI does not manage land, land management agencies and private landownersare encouraged to adapt these recommendationsto their

resourceplanning and management activities.

Strategies and 

Recommendations

The BMNRI proposes seven major strategies to address forest healthissues. Although

not irrevocably tied together, the strategies are closely linked. For that reason, they are

not presented in an order of priority becauseall must be done to beginthe processof

restoringforest healthto the Blue Mountains.Specific people, organizations, or agencies

have not been identifiedto take the lead on any of the strategies. We believethere is

more than enoughwork to go around and that carvingout pieces of turf will be counterproductivefor the naturalresources. Each strategy identifiedis followed by a brief

descriptionof the intent and some possible actions requiredto implement the strategy.

The list of actions is not meantto be comprehensive but to representthe current thought,

which will evolve as new knowledgebecomes available.

1. Plan and Implement ManagementActivities on a LandscapeLevel

Planningto addressforest healthand implementation of the plans must occur at the

landscape level; single-ownership plans, forest-stand plans, and project-level analyses

will not be sufficient. This strategy includes a multiagency, multiownership,multi-interest

group, and multidisciplinary approachto planning.This approach is neither unique nor

the common planning practice.The level of investment in forest health must be identified through social and political processesfrom an array of ecologically sustainable

alternatives.

Potential implementation activities:

Opportunities for integrated landscape-levelresearchshould be developed. This will

includesearching the literature, synthesizing existing knowledge,conducting research

to address the issues, demonstrating the application of the research, and transferring

the knowledgeto landowners,managers,and the general public.

Recognize differences in landowner objectives, financial resources, and incentivesfor

addressingdifferent aspects of forest health. Allow agency personnelto work on all

landownershiptypes (for example, Oregon Departmentof Forestry on National Forests

and ForestService managerson privateand State lands) in a cooperative, landscapelevel planning effort. The process has been used in what is termed "coordinated

resourcemanagement planning" and similar efforts.

Adaptive managementtechniques should be employed to transfer new informationto

landownersand managersas quickly as possible.Technical assistance to landowners

and managers should be provided on the most up-to-datemethods, and adaptive

management should be encouraged.

12
Re-examineforest management plans on State, private, and Federal lands to ensure

that the latest informationis being applied on the ground. Conversion prescriptions

should be based on site potential and management objectives. Insect and weed spray

programsshould be usedonly as short-termtacticsto enable longer-termstrategies

to be implemented.Forestconditions should be improvedby usingstockinglevelcontrol

andestablishingpest-resistantspecies as appropriateandwhere they arewell adapted.

Management shouldfocus onthe entire ecosystem and not on a specific subset of

resources. If salvage of dead and dying timber is required, ensure that the operation

looks beyondjust the removal and toward restoringforest health. Salvageshould not

be usedto removethe symptom but rather as a tool to beginthe healing process.

Critical biodiversity components of the landscapeshould be identifiedand managedat

the genetic, species, and landscapelevels. Riparianareas should be managed soundly

for all resourceuses and users.Timber harvesting systems that reduceonsite impacts

to the remainingresources should be developedand applied.

2. EnhanceTraining and Education on Natural Resources and Forest Health

A concerted effort is neededto educateall sectors of the populationon forest health

issuesand potentialsolutions. Educationmust begin at the very youngest ages and continue through the adult level. Land managers, decisionmakers,and interestedpublics

must have informationon the most current methods and technologies usedto address

forest health issues on a landscape level. These efforts should be coordinated among

agencies, organizations, educators, and others. The education and training should be a

combinationof onsite (field) and classroom activities that can be incorporatedinto existingK-12,college and university, and adult education programs. 

Potential implementation activities: 

Opportunitiesfor training and educational activities on integratedlandscape-level

researchshould be developed.This will include searchingthe literature, synthesizing

existing knowledge, conducting researchto addressthe issues, demonstratingthe

application of the research, and transferringthe knowledgeto the landowners and

managers andto the general public.

Existingeducation programsshould be built upon and new ones developedto meet the

needs of students, the general public,landowners, and natural resourcemanagers and

consultants.Consistent definitionsof terms and prescriptionsshould be developed and

applied by all landownersand managers and by other interested publics.

A systemof demonstration areas should bedevelopedto show effects of land management practicesusing scientific methods. Objectivesfor eachdemonstrationareashould

be established by scientists, managers, landowners,and concerned public, as appropriate. Onsitetours should be conducted, and other materials should be developedfor

use away from the sites (for example, videos, brochures, photographs, papers). 

3. Facilitate Public Involvement in Planning,Decisionmaking,and Implementing

Solutions to Natural Resource Problems

The Blue Mountains area is dominated by public ownership and management. Involving

the public in planning,decisionmaking, and implementingmanagement activities is seen

as a key element in addressing forest health issues. Public awareness programson the

13
key issuesandpotentialsolutions must befollowed by active participation inthe planning

and decisionmaking processes.Such public involvement from the beginningwill give a

sense of ownership inthe solutions implemented.This same process should be used at

the landscapelevelto includeall landowners,agencies, organizations,interestedpublics,

and disciplines.

Potential implementationactivities:

Opportunities for public involvementon integrated landscape-levelresearchshould be

developed.All interestedpublicsshouldbe involvedinthe design of research programs

to address specific issues. This can be in the form of advisory committees or direct

involvement indefiningthe issues and objectives to be addressed,Specific study

designs and methodologiesshould come from the scientists.

A coordinated multiagency,interest group, and landowner public awareness program

usingall available public relations tools should be developedand implemented. There

should be a continuous refiningand sharing of the knowledgebaseto develop a comprehensiveresponseto forest health issues.

Opportunities for public involvementin planningand decisionmakingfor the use of

natural resources should be developed. Involvement should begin at the earliest time,

beforealternatives have been developed.

4. Developa Framework and Implementan Operational Integrated Databasefor

Landscape-Level Planning and Management

Dataexistfor various purposes in many different forms. To begin planning and managing

at a landscape level,the data needto be organized at that level. A framework for the

type of data required, scale, collectiontechniques, source of data, legalrequirements, and

data ownership needsto be developedacross all land ownerships and agencies.Once

defined, a methodto resolve differences in existingdatabases needsto be developed

and implemented.For example,if a Geographic InformationSystem (GIS) is identified as

appropriateand all questions about scale, type of data, and so forth, are resolved,then

ways must befound to integratethe many different GISapplications already in use.

Potential implementationactivities:

Opportunities relatedto researchonanoperational integrated landscape-level database 

should be developed. This will includesearching the literature, synthesizing existing

knowledge, conducting researchto addressthe issues, demonstratingthe application

of the research, and transferring knowledgeto the landowners, managers, and the

general public.

A database format should be developedthat will be integrated across all land ownerships. This may be in the form of a GIS. The focus should be on those items most

relevant to future management of naturalresourcesat the landscape level. Data availability and reliability,data cost, data updating, and potential use should be considered

in design of the database. The database should be made available to natural resource

managers.

14
5. Develop a Framework and Implement an IntegratedMonitoring System for

Landscape-Level Planning and Management

An overall, integrated framework for monitoring forest health should be developed and

implementedat the landscapelevel. This integrated framework should address project-,

stand-, and landscape-level monitoringthat reflects the resource being monitored.

Monitoringlevels should betied to an integratedlandscape-monitoring framework that

addresses how the data are to be used in interpretingforest health. All agencies, organizations,and interested public should be involved inthe development of this framework.

Potential implementationactivities:

Opportunities relatedto research on an operational, integrated, landscape-levelmonitoring system should be developed. This will includesearchingthe literature, synthesizing existingknowledge,conducting researchto address the issues, demonstrating

the applicationof the research, and transferringthe knowledge to the landowners,

managers, and the general public.

An overall, integratedframework for monitoringforest health on a landscapebasis

should be developed. The framework should define standards, procedures, and plans

to implementthe framework cost-effectively.The monitoringdata and the operational

database must “fit”together for maximum usability by landowners, managers,and

others.

6. Assess Economic and Social Aspects of Forest Health Issues on People,

Communities,and the Area, and Assist With Adaptationto Change

Forest health issues and solutions will have an impact on people, communities,and the

Blue Mountains area. It is essential that any plan include and assess those living in the

region.The potential economic and social impacts needto be estimatedfor each alternative action. If solutions consideredto be best for the resources are determinedto have

a negativeeconomic impact, alternative economic development strategies should be

explored. Assistance programsfor affectedworkers and communities should be developed and implemented to deal with the change.

Potential implementationactivities:

Opportunities relatedto research on economic and social aspects of forest health

should be developed.This will include searchingthe literature, synthesizing existing

knowledge, conducting research to address the issues, demonstratingthe application

of the research, and transferringthe knowledgeto the landownersand managers and

to the general public.

The social and economic impacts on local communities should be assessed relativeto

forest healthissues and alternative management strategies. Economic diversification

strategies should be analyzed including current market and product expansionand

improvement.

Affected workers and communitiesshould receivetechnical assistancein developing

economic strategies that allow them to adapt to change.

Economic efficiency studies should be conductedfor all treatment plansto analyze

the benefits and costs to all resources. 15
Conclusions

7. Identify Barriersto Improving and Protecting Forest Health,Analyze Effects of

Alternatives, and Recommend Changesto Alleviate Barriers

There are many barriersto adequately addressingforest healthissues. Insome cases,

the most current knowledgeand techniques may not be appliedto the landscapebecause of barriersas simple as a lack of educationor as complex as a myriad of rules

and regulations. Each barrier, be it law, regulation, lack of information, policy, attitude,

or whatever, must be identifiedand addressed. Once identified, alternativecoursesof

action must be developed and analyzedto ensurethat new barriers are not erected.

Actions mustthen betaken to alleviateor eliminatethe barrier to change.

Potential implementation activities:

Opportunitiesrelated to research on institutionalbarriers to improving forest health

should be developed. This will includesearching the literature, synthesizing existing

knowledge, conducting researchto addressthe issues, demonstratingthe application

of the research, andtransferringthe knowledgeto the landownersand managers and

to the general public.

Fundingfor forest healthactivitiesshould be developed on a landscape basis and not

on the value of commoditiesremoved.Provideadequate incentivesfor landowners

and managersto implement recommended strategies.

The issue of reintroducingfire into the ecosystem and the impact on society from

smoke should be addressed. Prescribedfire often is discussed as one way to help

improvethe healthof the forest; however, air quality concerns may preventthis from

occurringon a large scale.

Onceforest health strategies are demonstratedto work, policy change recommendations should be developedthat address barriers to widespread implementation.

The forums, workshops, and technical committees have brought together diverse interests to focus on the management of natural resourcesin the Blue Mountainsarea. The

strategies and recommendationsdiscussed here are one result of those meetings. The

focus of the strategies is at the landscape level and through the use of an integrated

approach across land ownerships.

There is muchwork to bedone in dealingwiththe forest health issue. How that is accomplishedon each pieceof landwill depend on the objectives the landowner or manager

hasfor that land. We believethat our concern should be for the area’s naturalresources

and the long-term productivity and sustainability to meet current and future needs of the

people.

The BMNRl will be implementingsome of the strategies and recommendationsover the

next several years in cooperationwith many of the partner organizations.These will be

accomplishedthrough research, development,demonstration, application, and education. The slate of issues and opportunities likely will evolve as new information becomes

available. The mission of the BMNRI requires that it remainflexible and adaptable in the

face of economic and societal changes.

16
Literature Cited Barron, James C.; Thorgaard, G. 1991. Salmon and the Columbia River system.

NorthwestExt.Publ. PNW362. [Locationof publisher unknown]:OregonStateUniversity ExtensionService; [Location unknown]:Washington State University Cooperative

Extension; [Location unknown]:University of IdahoCooperativeExtensionSystem.9p.

Everett, Richard; Hessburg, Paul; Jensen, Mark; Bormann, Bernard. 1994. Volume

I:executive summary. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-317. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific NorthwestResearchStation. 61 p. (Everett,

RichardL., assessment team leader; Eastsideforest ecosystem health assessment).

Gast, William R., Jr.; Scott, DonaldW.; Schmitt, Craig [and others]. 1991. Blue

Mountainsforest healthreport: new perspectives in forest health. [Location of publisher unknown]: U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur, Umatilla,

andWallowa-WhitmanNationalForests. [Unconventional pagination].

Gladson, Jim. 1991. Forest health-a sharedvision for restoredforests. OregonWildlife. 47(5): 4-6.

Mutch, Robert W.; Arno, Stephen F.; Brown, James K. [and others]. 1993. Forest

health in the Blue Mountains:a management strategy for fire-adaptedecosystems.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-310. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. 14 p.

Nehlsen,Willa; Williams, Jack E.; Lichatowich, James A. 1991. Pacific salmon atthe

crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries,

16: 4-21.

Northwest Power PlanningCouncil. 1987. 1987Columbia River Basinfish and wildlife program. Portland, OR.

Oregon Department of Forestry.1991a. Restoringforest healthinthe BlueMountainsa strategy and action planfor state and privatelands. Tech. Bull. [Location of publisher

unknown]: Oregon Departmentof Forestry.7 p.

Oregon Department of Forestry. 1991b. Restoringforest healthinthe BlueMountainsa 10-year strategy plan. Forest Log. 61(2): 3-12.

Owneby, J.R.; Ezell, D.S. 1992. Monthly station normals of temperature, precipitation,

and heating and cooling degree days 1961-90, Oregon. Climatography of the United

States 81. [Locationof publisher unknown]: US. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration.

Society for Range Management. 1989. Assessment of rangelandcondition and trend

of the UnitedStatesj 989. [Locationof publisher unknown]: Society of Range Management, Public Affairs Committee.

Starr, G. Lynn; Quigley, Thomas M. 1992. Blue Mountains forest health public forums:

April-June, 1991. [Location of publisher unknown]: US. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 91 p.

US. Department of Agriculture. 1988. Foresthealththrough silviculture and integrated

pest management-a strategic plan.[Locationof publisher unknown]: U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Forest Service. 26 p.

17
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1991. Chartingthe future: a strategic planfor the

Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

ForestService, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. 23

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1993. Healthy forests for America’s future-a strategic plan. MP-1513.[Locationof publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service. 58 p.

U.S. Department of Commerce. [No date]. Annual climatological summary 1980to

1990for Baker FAAAP, and Burns, John Day, La Grande, and PendletonWSOAP

stations. [Locationof publisher unknown]: U.S. Department of Commerce, National

Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration.

Wickman, Boyd E. 1992. Forest health inthe Blue Mountains: the influence of insects

and diseases. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-295. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest ResearchStation. 15 p.

18
Tanaka, John A.; Starr, G. Lynn; Quigley, Thomas M.1995. Strategies and recommendationsfor

addressing forest health issues in the Blue Mountainsof Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech.

Rep. PNW-GTR-350. Portland,OR:U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific

Northwest Research Station. 18 p.

The Blue Mountains Natural Resources Instituteheld three types of meetingsto obtain public and

scientific input intothe development of strategies and recommendations for addressingforest health

issues in the Blue Mountainsof Oregon and Washington. Seven strategies are proposed: (1) plan

and implement management activities on a landscape level; (2) enhance training and education on

naturalresources and forest health; (3) facilitate public involvement in planning, decisionmaking, and 

implementing solutions to natural resource problems; (4) develop a framework and implement an

operational integrated database for landscape-levelplanning and management; (5) develop a framework and implement an integrated monitoring system for landscape-level planning and management: 

(6) assess economic and social effects of forest health issues on people, communities, and the area,

and assist with adaptation to change; and (7)identify barriersto improvingand protectingforest

health,analyze the effects of alternatives, and recommend changes to alleviate barriers. The slate of

1 issuesand opportunities to implement this strategy will evolve as society’s needs change and scien-

, tific information becomes available. 

Keywords: Forest health, Blue Mountains,landscape-level planning, economic and social adaptation. 

public involvement.

The Forest Service of the US. Department of

Agriculture is dedicatedto the principleof multiple

use management of the Nation’s forest resources

for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife,

and recreation. Through forestry research,

cooperationwith the States and privateforest

owners, and management of the NationalForests

and NationalGrasslands, it strives-as directed by

Congress-to provide increasingly greater service

to a growing Nation.

The UnitedStates Departmentof Agriculture (USDA)

Forest Service is a diverse organization committed

to equal opportunity inemployment and program

delivery. USDA prohibits discrimination on the

basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, politicalaffiliation, and familial

status. Persons believingthat they have been

discriminatedagainst should contact the Secretary,

U.S. Departmentof Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250,

or call 202-720-7327 (voice), or 202-720-1127 (TDD).

Pacific Northwest ResearchStation

333S.W. FirstAvenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, Oregon 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest ResearchStation

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland. OR 97208

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300

do NOT detach label